
< 1 






























CRITICAL 



HISTORY AND DEFENCE 



OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 



M. STUART 



PBOEESSOE OF SAC. LITEEATUEE IN THE THEOL. SEMINARY, 
AXDOYEK, MASS. 



AND OVER: 

ALLEN, MOEEILL AND WAEDWELL, 

NE-ff YORK : MARK H. KETV3IAN. 

1845. 



lis* 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1845, by 

MOSES STUART, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts, 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

§ 1. Introductory Remarks 1 

§ 2. Definition of the word Canon 24 

§ 3. Commencement of the Canon 31 

§ 4. State of Literature and Instruction among the Hebrews . 60 

§ 5. Continued History of the Canon ; books of known authors 134 

§ 6. Continued History .... Books anonymous . . . 142 

§ 7. Lost books of the Hebrews 180 

§ 8. Manner of preserving the Sacred books . . . . 194 

§ 9. Genuineness ; general considerations .... 214 

§10. Completion of the Canon 221 

§11. Ancient divisions of the Canon 244 

§ 12. Sameness of the Jewish Canon ever since its completion . 256 

§ 13. General Results 293 

§ 14. Canon of the Egyptian Jews 298 

§ 15. How were the Scriptures estimated by the Jews 1 . . 300 

§ 16. Summary of testimony by Sirach, Philo, and Josephus . 312 

§ 17. Nature and importance of New Testament testimony . 313 

§ 18. Appeals by the New Testament to the Old . . . 319 

§ 19. Result 343 

§ 20. Conclusion 346 

§ 21. Remarks on doubts respecting some of the Old Test, books 348 

§ 22. Use of the Old Testament 385 

APPENDIX. 

No. I. Testimony of the Son of Sirach 423 

No. H. " of Philo Judaeus 428 

No. HI. " of Josephus 429 

No. IV. " of Melito 431 



CONTENTS. 

No. V. " of Origen 433 

No. VI. " of the Council of Laodicea .... 436 

No. VH. " of Cyrill of Jerusalem 437 

No. VIII. " of Gregory Nazianzen 439 

No. IX. " of Athanasius 441 

No. X. " of Synopsis of Scripture . . . . , 443 

No. XI. " of Epiphanius 445 

No. XII. " of the Council of Hippo .... 447 

No. XIII. " of the Council of Carthage .... 448 

No. XIV. " of Jerome 448 

No. XV. " of Hilary 451 

No. XVI. " of Eufinus 452 



CRITICAL HISTORY 



AND DEFENCE OF THE 



CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 



§ 1. Introductory Remarks. 

The time has been, when few, if any, who admitted the 
divine origin and authority of the Christian religion, deemed 
it consistent or decorous to deny the sacred authority of the 
Old Testament Scriptures. But that time has passed away, 
and we have come to witness new developments of skeptical 
feelings, at which our ancestors would have stood astounded. 
I do not mean to aver, that there has not, for ages past, been 
a class of men in all Christian countries, who doubted the 
divine authority of the Christian and Jewish religion, and of 
course the divine origin and authority of the sacred books in 
general. But the professed reception of the Christian reli- 
gion as divine, with the admission that the New Testament 
contains at least a credible and authentic account of it ; the ad- 
mission at the same time, that the Jewish religion had some 
proper and real claim to be considered as having been approv- 
ed and established by God, while the Old Testament is regard- 
ed in the main as a work of sciolists and impostors ; is a phe- 
nomenon that has rarely occurred, I believe,, in any coun- 
try, but which we of the present day are called upon, perhaps 
for the first time, to witness. 

Past experience and a priori reasoning from the nature of 
the case would probably have led most persons to conclude, 
1 



2 § 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

that such a development would not take place on the part of 
any well informed and consistent man ; yet Mr. Norton, in a 
work replete in many respects with learning and valuable 
matter — a work which he entitles Evidences of the Genuine- 
ness of the Gospels — has taken the unusual position which I 
have been describing. In a Note appended to Vol. II. of 
this work, extending from p. xlviii. to p. cc, in which he has 
brought under review " the Jewish dispensation, the Penta- 
teuch, and the other Books of the Old Testament," he has 
developed his opinions at length on these subjects,, and actual- 
ly and earnestly labored to show, that in order to maintain 
the divine origin of the Jewish religion, as founded by Moses, 
it becomes- necessary to show that he did not write the Pen- 
tateuch ; and in like manner, in order to show that the Jewish 
prophets and others who labored to promote the observance 
of the Jewish religion, were the true disciples of a true reli- 
gion, it becomes necessary to show, that most of the Old Tes- 
tament books are filled with incredible, or trivial, or super- 
stitious narrations and notions, and that the best we can do. 
even with the prophets, is to select here and there a pas- 
sage that accoi'ds with reason and sound judgment, to which 
we may give our assent as being worthy of the ancient dis- 
pensation, while the rest is to be placed under the same cat- 
egory as the fictions and extravagant accounts of all other 
nations, respecting their' origin and their history in ages too 
remote to have been consigned to writing. 

It is not my design, in the present work, to review at 
length and controvert all the positions of Mr. Norton. It 
will be seen, in the brief account that I shall give of them in 
the sequel, that a great proportion of them belong rather to 
the department of Christian theology, specially of apologetic 
and polemic theology, than to the department of sacred liter- 
ature. I leave to others what properly belongs to them, not 
doubting in the least that there is the ability and the will, 
among some of the theologians of our country, to put on their 
armour and advance to the contest, when the attempt is made 
to take our citadel by storm. My intention is to confine my- 



§ 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 3 

self, in the main, within the limits of a critical and histori- 
cal view of the Jewish Canon of Scripture in the days of 
Christ and the apostles, and to shoic that this Canon, as receiv- 
ed by the Jeics at that tune, was declared by our Saviour and 
his apostles to be of divine origin and authority, and loas 
treated by them as entitled to these claims. If it can be shown 
that Christ and the apostles, as the commissioned messen- 
gers of God to establish Christianity, did receive, regard, and 
treat the Scriptures of the Jews as obligatory and of divine 
authority, and also that these Scriptures were the same books 
which belong to our present Old Testament, then two con- 
sequences must follow from the establishment of these propo- 
sitions. The first is, that whatever doubts or difficulties any 
one may have about the critical history or origin of particu- 
lar books in the Old Testament, still he must now acknow- 
ledge that they have received the sanction of an authority 
from which there is no appeal. Universal skepticism alone 
can make exceptions to them, on the ground of credibility 
and authenticity. The second is, that the man who admits 
the divine origin and authority of the Christian religion, and 
that the New Testament contains a credible and authentic 
account or development of it by Christ and by the apostles, 
must be altogether inconsistent with himself and inconse- 
quent in his reasonings, if he rejects the divine origin and au- 
thority of the Old Testament Scriptures. 

If I succeed in proving in a historico-eritical way what I 
design to prove, the nucleus of the question, as to the author- 
ity and claims of the Old Testament, would seem to be reach- 
ed. I shall not endeavour therefore to invest myself, on the 
present occasion, with the panoply of the merely apologetic 
and polemic theologian. Let those use it, who have long 
worn it, and are semper par ati for contest The simple sling 
and stone of historical criticism are all that I assay to use. 
And if I miss my aim, I must leave it for others to defend 
our common citadel in a more effectual manner ; for defence 
would seem to be needed. The contest has become one pro 
aris et focis. 



4 § 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

Mr. Norton's work consists of three volumes, and is print- 
ed in a splendid manner. The size of the work, and the con- 
sequent price of it, will doubtless prevent a widely extended 
circulation of the book. On this account, and because of 
what I have already said respecting it, I have thought it 
would appear desirable to most of my readers to learn some- 
thing of the nature of the attack which he has made upon 
the Old Testament, through the medium of some brief com- 
munication. In as summary a manner as possible, I will 
therefore now present them with a coup d'oeil, or table of 
contents, of that portion of his work which I have specially 
in view on this occasion. 

He commences with the concession, that the Jewish religion 
is divine, and that Christianity is built upon it. But this, he 
^ays, does not make Christianity in the least degree respon- 
sible for the books of the Old Testament. The Jewish reli- 
gion itself, he avers, is no more responsible for the books of 
the Old Testament, than Christianity is responsible for the 
writings of the fathers from the second century to the elev- 
enth ; p. 48 seq. 

The character ascribed by most Christians to the Old Tes- 
tament Scriptures, he goes on to say, brings them into colli- 
sion with rational criticism in the interpretation of language, 
with the moral and religious conceptions of enlightened men, 
and with the progress of the physical sciences. They are 
contradicted by geology ; p. 50. The philosopher must re- 
ject their [the scriptural] views of the Godhead ; the enlight- 
ened Christian and moralist must reject the cruelties which 
they often enjoin, as appropriate only to a dark and barba- 
rous age ; the careful inquirer will be revolted by their con- 
tradictions and discrepancies. The explanations and defence 
of these things have been unsatisfactory, and built on false 
principles and assumed facts ; so that one can hardly believe 
that the men who have offered them have been sincere in so 
doing; p. 51 seq. 

In expressing these views, he says that he merely gives 
form and voice to the ideas and feelings that exist in the 



§ 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 5 

minds of a large portion of intelligent believers ; p. 52. To 
separate all these things from Christianity, so that it shall not 
be responsible for them, is the duty of every friend to this 
religion ; p. 58. 

To maintain that Moses was a minister of God, is one 
thing ; to maintain that he was the author of the Pentateuch, 
is another. So far is the truth of either proposition from be- 
ing involved in the other, that, in order to render it evident 
that the mission of Moses was from God, it may be neces- 
sary to prove that the books, which profess to contain a his- 
tory of his ministry, were not written by him, and do not af- 
ford an authentic account of it ; p. 67. 

The Pentateuch puts forward no claims to be considered 
as the work of Moses. The fact that the Law, in the time 
of Ezra, was ascribed to Moses, does not prove that the au- 
thorship of the Pentateuch was at the same time ascribed to 
him. In the reign of Josiah, a short time before the capti- 
vity, the Jews were ignorant of any written copy of their na- 
tional laws, as is evident from the discovery as represented of 
a copy of the Law in the temple. Such a book was before 
unknown to Josiah a pious king, to the secretary Shaphan, 
and to the high priest Hilkiah. " The story of its being ac- 
cidentally found in the temple, may be thought to have been 
what was considered a justifiable artifice, to account for the 
appearance of a book hitherto unknown;" pp. 71, 84, 86. 

The Canon of the Old Testament, after the captivity, com- 
prised all the books of the Hebrews then extant. This Ca- 
non was formed upon no principle of selection, but comprised 
all the remains of ancient literature. There is little doubt 
that compositions were ascribed to some of the prophets, par- 
ticulary to Isaiah, of which they were not the authors ; p. 
72 seq. 

The tradition that Ezra revised and reedited the books of 
the Old Testament, is obviously fabulous. There exists no 
historical evidence that Moses was the author of the Penta- 
teuch. In the other books of the Old Testament, there is in- 
deed reference to various narratives and laws now found in 
1* 



6 § 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

the Pentateuch ; but these references are in fact to traditions 
and national laws that existed before the Pentateuch ; and 
by the aid of these the Pentateuch was afterwards compiled ; 
p. 73 seq. 

No such book as a Pentateuch by Moses is mentioned in 
the books of Samuel, or Kings, or in those of the prophets 
who were the public teachers of religion ; p. 82 seq. The 
Pentateuch could not have been the national code of the 
Jews ; for its ordinances were not observed during the long 
period of the monarchies, and many things were often done 
which the Pentateuch forbids ; or neglected which it enjoins ; 
p. 88 seq. 

The Pentateuch was not written until some time after the 
return of the Jews from the captivity ; and then, tradition- 
ary stories, laws, customs, ritual observances, etc., were in- 
serted, and all these were attributed to Moses, in order to 
give greater weight and authority to the compilation ; p. 96 
seq. 

The art of writing was not in use in the time of Moses ; 
and consequently the writing of the Pentateuch by him was 
impossible ; p. 100 seq. The style of Moses could not pos- 
sibly have been so much like the style of the later writers. 
A period so long, without more change of language, is in- 
credible and contrary to all experience ; p. 102 seq. The 
Pentateuch contains narrations of events later than the time 
of Moses, and if it had been really his work interpolations of 
this kind could never have taken place ; p. 105 seq. 

The Pentateuch does not make claim to Moses as its au- 
thor. It always speaks of him in the third person, and not 
in the first. Such a semblance of modesty would have been 
wholly unsuitable for him in his official character ; p. 106. 

The facts related in the Pentateuch show that it is full of 
inaccuracies. The number of fighting men (600,000), when 
the Israelites left Egypt, is incredible and impossible. Their 
original number and time of sojourning in Egypt were utter- 
ly inadequate to have brought into existence such a number. 
The genealogy of Moses proves that the Israelites could not 



§ 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 7 

have been in Egypt more than 215 years at the most, in- 
stead of the 430 as commonly reckoned, and 215 years could 
have done but little toward producing such a number ; p. 
110 seq. 

The account of the flight from Egypt, and of the journey 
through the wilderness, is replete with difficulties, incredibili- 
ties, and impossibilities. How could two and a half millions 
of men be put in motion in one night ? Whence all their 
flocks, and herds, and wealth ? How could they all quench 
their thirst at Marah, or at Horeb ? p. 113 seq. 

Before the birth of Moses, Pharoah is represented as say- 
ing, that the Israelites had become stronger than the Egyp- 
tians, and therefore the male children must be destroyed. 
The thing is impossible. The command is incredible. How 
could Pharoah wish to lessen the number of his slaves ? 
How could he suppose it possible, that the Jews would sub- 
mit to his cruel orders and obey him ? p. 115 seq. 

Moreover, how could such a multitude find food and drink 
in the Arabian waste ? The water was supplied miraculous- 
ly but twice. What became of their flocks and herds ? They 
must have all perished in such circumstances ; and hence 
their state of starvation, i. e. by reason of losing them. 
And yet, before they quitted Mount Sinai, they appear to 
have had an abundance of cattle for sacrifices, lambs for the 
passover, and all manner of spices, flour, oil, wine, etc ; p. 
116 seq. 

Whence came all their skill in the different arts ? How 
could brick-making slaves understand architecture, engrav- 
ing, and the manufactory of splendid furniture and garments ? 
How could they transport all these through the desert, when 
they had no camels ? p. 119 seq. 

The Israelites are forbidden to destroy all the people of the 
land of Canaan, lest wild beasts should overrun the country. 
Were not two and a half millions of people more than 
enough to keep in due subjection the wild beasts of a coun- 
try, which was only 200 miles in length and 100 in breadth ? 
p. 120 seq. 



8 § 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

On the supposition that all the wonderful events took place 
which are narrated in the Pentateuch, how is it possible to 
believe that the Jews would have been so stupid, ungrateful, 
and rebellious as their history represents them to be ; p. 122 
seq. There is indeed sublimity in the description of the 
creation, and lofty conception as to the true nature of religion 
in the precept, that men should love God with all the heart 
and their neighbor as themselves. But " in coming to the 
Pentateuch we have entered only the precincts of true reli- 
gion, while grotesque shapes are around us, and the heavens 
are obscured by clouds from which the thunder is rolling ;" 
p. 123 seq. 

The conceptions of God, in Genesis, are very rude ones. 
In Ex. iv. the account of Jehovah's meeting Moses and seek- 
ing to slay him, is strange indeed. Ex. xxiv. is not less so. 
The marvellous theophany related there, and all its tremen- 
dous solemnity of preparation, ends in the command to the 
Israelites to bring silver and gold and rams' skins and goats' 
hair and aromatics, etc., and make and furnish a tabernacle 
for Jehovah to dwell in. Many other directions in the se- 
quel are equally trivial ; p. 126 seq. 

God is represented in a most unbecoming manner through- 
out the Pentateuch. The command to punish the Egyptian 
nation because of Pharoah's haughtiness and cruelty ; the in- 
junction to extirpate the Midianites, but to keep the virgin 
females for their own use, (which at least did but sanction 
and perpetuate the barbarism of the age) ; the command of 
utter excision in respect to the Canaanites ; are inconsistent 
with the justice or the mercy of God. Why should the in- 
nocent suffer with the guilty, as an oriental despot extermi- 
nates a family for the offences of its head ? The effect of 
making the Jews executioners of the divine indignation 
against the idolatrous Canaanites, must have been to convert 
them into a horde of ferocious and brutal barbarians ; p. 
127 seq. 

The distinguishing rite of the Jews was painful, and the 
thought of it disgusting. Nothing can render it probable, 



§ 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 9 

that the laws respecting slaves were from God. And what 
shall we say of the command to destroy witches ? What of 
such commands as forbid the eating of particular birds and 
beasts, some of which no one would ever think of eating, ex- 
cept in case of actual starvation ? On many laws, moreover, 
which the Pentateuch contains, delicacy forbids one even to 
comment ; p. 131 seq. 

On the whole, it is altogether evident, that the original in- 
stitutions of Moses had been greatly corrupted and changed 
by superstition, and by hankering after ritual observances, 
before the Pentateuch could have been written as it now is ; 
p. 134. 

The spirit of the prophets is wholly different from that of 
the Law, and often in opposition to it. They put no faith 
in sacrifices or ritual observances ; p. 135 seq. The Penta- 
teuch, in declaring that God visits the iniquity of the fathers 
upon the children, stands hi direct opposition to Ezekiel, who 
declares that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, 
nor the father the iniquity of the son ; Ezek. xviii. This 
same Ezekiel is full of unseemly representations of the God- 
head. His work is repulsive for other reasons. The last 
nine chapters show him to have been a stickler for mere 
rites and ceremonies ; p. 135 seq. 

Malachi shows how the Jews reasoned and felt, after the 
full ritual of the Pentateuch was introduced. What he says 
is directly in opposition to Ps. 1. ; p. 143 seq. The Son of 
Sirach, Philo, Josephus, the Essenes, all thought but little of 
the ritual ordinances of the Pentateuch ; p. 145 seq. 

Our Saviour everywhere shows how little he regarded the 
Jewish ritual ordinances. " It is an unquestionable fact, that 
his words- are not always reported to us with correctness." 
Sometimes, also, he employed Jewish modes of expression 
that were common, in order to avoid the exciting of pre- 
judice among his hearers. Both these things are to be 
kept steadily in view, in the interpretation of what he may 
seem to have said about the ancient Scriptures ; and nearly 



10 § 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

every difficulty can be removed by the aid of these two con- 
siderations. E. g. where he is reported as saying : " Moses 
wrote concerning me," it is evident that the Evangelist, through 
default of memory or want of reflection, used the word wrote 
instead of the word spoke. So, instead of receiving, in its 
simple and obvious sense, the declaration of Christ as report- 
ed by John (John 5: 46), viz. " Had ye believed Moses, ye 
would have believed me ; for he wrote concerning me," we are 
to adopt the following substitute as expressive of Christ's real 
meaning, viz. " Had ye believed Moses, ye would have be- 
lieved me ; for the books which, as you suppose, Moses wrote, 
concern me ;" p. 150 seq. 

The Jewish Law was civil as well as ecclesiastical. It 
was on this ground merely that the Saviour and his apostles 
obeyed it, and required others to do so, while it continued ; p. 
143 seq. Sometimes, indeed, Jesus violated it ; e. g. in order to 
do good on the Sabbath, and to inculcate the duties of kindness 
and humanity. This was intended to lead the Jews to reflect 
on the folly of their attachment to ritual observances ; p. 164 
seq. Occasionally Christ directly taught the vanity and 
groundlessness of the Jewish Laws ; e. g. by what he says 
about eating that which is unclean (Matt, xv.) ; by what he 
says in respect to the matter of divorces (Matt. xix. and v.) ; 
p. 172 seq. The conversation with the Samaritan woman 
(John iv.) shows, how little value Jesus put upon the whole 
Jewish ritual ; p. 179. 

Thus much for the Pentateuch. Now for the other books 
of the Old Testament. 

In the books of Joshua and Judges there is a great mix- 
ture of fabulous traditions, such as are found in the early 
history of all other nations ; p. 181. No one- who puts 
aside the notion of the divine authority of all the Hebrew books, 
can doubt that extravagant fables and false prodigies are found 
in all those which relate the Jewish history antecedent to the 
time of Samuel ; and there seems to be no good reason why 
the books of Samuel and Kings should be regarded as excep- 



§ I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 11 

tions to this mixture ; p. 185. But still we may admit real 
miracles, in cases where an important and evident moral de- 
sign is in view ; p. 185 seq. 

The prophets were moral preachers. Some of their num- 
ber may have been occasionally employed as the special min- 
isters of God. Jesus never appeals to them for evidence of 
his divine mission. Our Saviour did not accomplish any ex- 
press prophecy relating to him ; but he came in conformity 
to an expectation, which the whole tenor of God's providence 
had taught the Jews to entertain ; p. 189 seq. 

The error committed in representing the Old Testament as 
of divine origin, has, beyond question, been a most serious 
hindrance to all rational belief of the fact, that God has mi- 
raculously revealed himself to man; p. 198. 

I have now given a compressed view of the arguments 
employed by Mr. Norton, in order to overthrow the claims of 
the Old Testament to be considered as a book of divine origin 
and authority. I have in no case made, by any design or ef- 
fort on my part, the representation stronger than he has made 
it. It is not my wish to paint in more vivid colours than those 
which he has employed. In most cases, I have employed his 
own language ; and where I have not, I have changed the 
diction merely for the sake of abridgment, and not from a de- 
sign to employ any stronger colouring. 

Mr. Norton himself declares (p. 52), that "in expressing 
his opinions he is only giving form and voice to the ideas and 
feelings that exist in the minds of a large portion of intelli- 
gent believers ;" and also, that " there is nothing in them of 
novelty or of boldness." It is indeed most obviously true, 
that there is nothing special in them of novelty. For sub- 
stance they have been before the world for some sixteen 
centuries. Porphyry and Celsus knew well how to manage 
weapons of this sort. But as to boldness, I think his modes- 
ty should not have shrunk from a claim to this. It certainly 
did require some boldness for one who had been a preacher of 



12 § 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

the gospel and a Teacher in a Theological Seminary profes- 
sedly Christian, to make before the whole world declarations 
such as he has made. No one indeed who knows him well, can 
fail to regard him as an independent thinker and reasoner ; 
and after what he has recently published to the world, he may 
not very unreasonably be denominated somewhat of a free 
thinker. His objections to the Old Testament ai'e, it is true, 
nearly all of a date somewhat ancient. But I do not regard 
him, on this account, as merely copying and retailing the opin- 
ions of others. It is manifest enough, through his whole work, 
that he has thought and reasoned for himself, even when he 
has employed material which others had collected and which 
he found in a manner ready to his hand. 

I have already said, that it is no part of my design to ex- 
amine in detail all the objections of Mr. N. to the Old Tes- 
tament. Most of them plainly belong to the province of po- 
lemic and apologetic theology ; and I shall therefore leave 
them to those whose proper business it is to act in this de- 
partment. "Why they have not sooner begun to act in de- 
fence of one of the citadels of revelation, I know not. I have 
not unfrequently heard the remark made, that < had the ques- 
tion been one of metaphysical theology, which concerned 
points where even evangelical Christians may and do disa- 
gree, and have for centuries disagreed, there would not have 
been wanting a goodly number of defenders, specially against 
an attack made either by one side or the other upon points 
mooted by New School and Old School. But now, (they 
have the boldness to add), the theologians stand off at wary 
distance, as the camp of Israel did when Goliath came out 
to bid defiance to them.' But I am reluctant to accede 
to such an intimation. I know indeed full well, and I 
regret, the excessive zeal that is abroad about points 
of mere speculation in theology, which are never likely to be 
settled ; but I must still believe, that there are not many 
Christian ministers in the evangelical ranks, who would not 
relax, and recede from the boundaries that sect and party 



§ 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 13 

names have set up, when it becomes necessary to unite in 
order to defend and save the citadel of all religion. Time 
will show, whether I am not in the right. 

I cannot resist the impression made on me by the reading 
of Mr. N.'s critique on the Old Testament, that the estima- 
tion in which he has for many years held it, has prevented: 
him from devoting much of his time to the study of it.. He- 
tells us (p. 62), that his remarks on the Old Testament were 
committed to writing more than ten years before he put them 
to the press. If be had named a period thrice as long, I could 
easily have believed his declaration to be true. He has sure- 
ly made some faux pas in matters of Old Testament criti- 
cism, which, had he read more widely, and kept up at all 
with the times in their development of historical criticism 
pertaining to the Hebrew Scriptures, he could not well have 
made. I do not say this ad invidiam, nor in order to wound 
his feelings. I say it from a full persuasion, that more en- 
larged views would have given quite a different direction to 
some parts of his critique, and spared him the labour of de- 
fending some things, which he must now find, on a more ex- 
tended examination, to be indefensible. 

My present design forbids me to go into detail at all, in. 
order to justify these assertious. I can only glance at one or 
two matters, as explanatory of what I mean. 

Mr. N. asserts, that there is no satisfactory evidence that 
alphabetical writing was known in the time of Moses. Should 
he not have known, that the recent paleographic examina- 
tions in Egypt, Phenicia, Persia, and Assyria, make entirely 
against this, even if he sets aside the abundant evidence of 
the Greek writers, that their alphabet is as old as the time of 
Cadmus ? Gesenius, most of his life a strenuous assertor of 
the late origin of the Pentateuch, was compelled by his Phe- 
nician and Egyptian investigations to say, that " alphabetic 
writing must have been in use among the Egyptians at least 
2000 years before the Christian era ;" and that ' their neigh- 
bours, the Phenicians, in all probability, must have employed 
this method of writing, as early as the reign of the shepherd- 



14 § 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

kings in Egypt.' Ges. Heb. Gramm. edit. 13. Exc. I. p. 290. 
This preeminent paleographer, then, from whose decision it 
is not very safe to appeal as to such matters, places the art of 
alphabetical writing long enough before the time of Moses, to 
give it a wide sweep in Egypt and Phenicia, and indeed in 
the neighbouring countries. And if Moses was " learned in 
all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words 
and deeds," as the martyr Stephen asserts (Acts 7: 22), can- 
not one venture to attribute to him the knowledge of alpha- 
betic writing ? 

Again, when Mr. N. avers (p. 102 seq.), that the Hebrew 
of the Pentateuch and of the later Hebrew books is of the 
same stamp, and that we cannot possibly suppose, that an in- 
terval of 900 or 1000 years would not have made a greater 
change in the Hebrew language than is developed by these 
Jewish writings, I must think that he has not paid very strict 
attention to the history of languages. Is it not a fact, that 
the Peshito or old Syriac version of the New Testament, 
made during the second century, is altogether of the same 
linguistic tenor as the Syriac Chronicon of Bar Hebraeus, 
written about one thousand years later ? Is it not a fact, that 
the Arabic of the Coran, and of the Arabian writers just before 
and after the time of Mohammed, differs but slightly from 
that of the Arabian writers from the tenth down to the 
eighteenth century ? And yet another fact. The late Dr. 
Marshman, a missionary in Hindoostan, translated into Eng- 
lish the great work of Confucius, the celebrated Chinese phi- 
losopher and teacher, who lived more than five centuries be- 
fore the Christian era. The same gentleman diligently con- 
sulted the principal commentators on the work of Confucius, 
and he assures us, that commentaries written 1500 and more 
years after the time of Confucius are altogether of the same 
type of language which is exhibited in the work of that phi- 
losopher. Facts like these, now, need no comment. They 
place the matter beyond fair appeal. Indeed the nature of 
the case speaks for itself. The Jews were neither a literary 
nor a commercial people. They saw little of strangers 



§ 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 15 

abroad, and very few foreigners resided among them. They 
knew little of the arts and sciences, and certainly made no ad- 
vances in them. What was there then to operate in the way 
of producing many and important changes in their language ? 
There was nothing like to that which produces changes of 
this nature at the present day, among the nations of the 
West. Their case was, in respect to intercourse, like to that 
of the Chinese. The effect of such a state of things upon 
language, was the same in Palestine and in China. 

Yet even in any state of a nation, however uniform, we 
cannot but suppose that a long time will make some varia- 
tions in language. It did so among the Hebrews. The as- 
sertion of Mr. N. is by no means correct, that there are no 
diversities of language between the Pentateuch and later 
books of the Hebrew. Jahn, that well known and highly 
respected theologian and critic at Vienna, just before his 
death, published a series of Essays in Bengel's Archiv, which 
demonstrate the point in question beyond appeal. Archa- 
isms, or whatever Mr. N. may call them, abound to some ex- 
tent in the Pentateuch ; and the anal- leyofiava of the Pen- 
tateuch, Jahn has shown to be quite a large number. 

Once more ; but in respect to a case of a different tenor. 
Mr. N. thinks, that the use of the third person in the narra- 
tions of the Pentateuch, shows that Moses was not the au- 
thor. There was no reason, he avers, for his adopting such 
a method of writing. It was Moses' business to speak with 
authority, and to place himself directly before the people. 

The histories of Caesar and Clarendon, which employ the 
third person, are no justification, in his view, of the usage in 
question. Yet Mr. N. maintains, that the Gospels of Mat- 
thew and of John are worthy of credit. But where, I ask, 
have these writers spoken of themselves in the first person ? 

Mr. N. says, that the Pent, does not claim to be the work 
of Moses, i. e. he has not affixed his name to it as the au- 
thor, and therefore, there is no certainty that the work is 
his. He will permit me to ask him, how he could write 
three volumes to show the Genuineness of the Gospels, when 



16 § 1 . INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

not a single one of them has the name of its author affixed 
to it, or contains an explicit declaration as to who was its 
author ? Every sciolist in criticism knows, that the titles 
now affixed to the Gospels, ai*e the work of critics quite re- 
mote from the times of the apostles. 1 

But I must withdraw my hand. I have said enough to il- 
lustrate and confirm the representation which I have made 
above ; and this is all that can now be done. 

Mr. N. appears to cherish strong feelings of disapproba- 
tion toward that branch of the so-called Liberal Party, who 
have discarded the authority of both the Old Testament and 
the New ; who doubt the personality of the Godhead ; and 
who flatly deny the possibility of miracles. He speaks of 
their system as a " shallow philosophy," and appears to be 
much in earnest when defending the miraculous power of 
Christ ; but rather less so, perhaps, when defending that of 
the apostles. Yet most of the reasons of any considerable 
weight, which Mr. N. has brought forward against the claims 
of the Old Testament, either flow from, or are connected with, 
his unwillingness to believe in the miraculous interpositions 
of the Godhead as there declared. Was there not as much 
need of these interpositions in the ancient times of darkness 
and ignorance, as there was at a later period when the New 
Testament was written ? He allows, indeed, a few cases in 
which he thinks that a miracle may be deemed probable ; 
e. g. such a case as that of fire falling from heaven to con- 
sume the sacrifice which Elijah had prepared, in order to 
put to the test the claims of Jehovah and of Baal to divine 
honors. But he erases from the list of credibles every case 
of alleged miraculous interposition, where he cannot perceive 
the moral purpose accomplished by it. A subjective line 
of separation between the true and the false, he has probably 
drawn for himself. A copy of the drawing, it may be, is im- 
pressed upon his own mind. But what the objective rule for 

1 Sec Chrysostom, Honiil. I. in Matt. ; also Hug, Einl. ins N. Testa- 
ment, ^ 47. 



§ 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 17 

testing the credible and incredible is, by which others, who 
are of different modes of thinking and who view religious 
matters in a different light, may be guided, and may thus 
possibly come to an agreement with him, he has not told us. 
There are men, who at least would be greatly offended at 
having either their learning, or their logic, or their piety 
called in question, and who in fact regard religion as a matter 
of very grave import, and yet have avowed themselves un- 
able to discover the great moral end of converting the water 
at a wedding feast into a large quantity of wine ; who are 
not quite satisfied with the moral bearing of Christ's per- 
mission to the demons to enter an immense herd of swine 
and drown them in the sea ; who hang in suspense concern- 
ing the great moral design manifested by cursing and wither- 
ing the fig-tree. Now what has Mr. N. to say, to satisfy these 
doubters ? Whatever it may be, it will at least be as easy 
to say the like things, in order to satisfy our minds respect- 
ing many miracles related in the Old Testament which he 
rejects with scorm 

Some persons, in a state of mind quite different from that 
of Mr. N., or of those who are filled with doubts about the 
miracles of Christ mentioned above, still hesitate to decide at 
once on the matters under consideration, and therefore in- 
quire, and cautiously and candidly examine. It is quite possi- 
ble to suppose, that there are men, who after having done all 
this, are not entirely satisfied with the reasons alleged for de- 
fending the reality of these miracles, (I mean so far as their 
intellectual judgment is concerned), while at the same time, 
they remove all real stumbling blocks from their way, by the 
consideration, that there may have been ends accomplished, 
or may be ends to be accomplished, by some miracles, of 
which they are not aware. They are conscious that their 
knowledge is imperfect, and that to decide with confidence 
against the truth of such narrations as relate the miracles in 
question, while all around is admitted to be credible and true, 
would be like to deciding that the black spots which have re- 
cently appeared in such numbers upon the face of the sun, 



18 § 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

do not in reality belong to that body, because, as they ap- 
prehend, it can be nothing but a uniform blaze of glory. 

To me this state of mind, however undesirable, presents a 
much more cheering aspect than that of Mr. N., or of his 
bolder liberal brethren. My experience has taught me 
something in relation to such subjects. In the early part of 
my biblical studies, some 30 — 35 years ago, when I first be- 
gan the critical investigation of the Scriptures, doubts and 
difficulties started up on every side, like the armed men 
whom Cadmus is fabled to have raised up. Time, patience, 
continued study, a better acquaintance with the original scrip- 
tural languages, and the countries where the sacred books 
were written, have scattered to the winds nearly all these 
doubts. I meet indeed with difficulties still, which I cannot 
solve at once ; with some, where even repeated efforts have 
not solved them. But I quiet myself by calling to mind, 
that hosts of other difficulties, once apparently to me as for- 
midable as these, have been removed, and have disappeared 
from the circle of my troubled vision. Why may I not hope, 
then, as to the difficulties that remain ? Every year is now 
casting some new light on the Bible, and making plain some 
things which aforetime were either not understood, or were 
misunderstood. Why may not my difficulties be reached by 
some future progressive increase of light ? At least, in the 
revolution of the sun, the dark spots will sooner or later dis- 
appear. And, what is more than all considerations of this 
kind — speedily the whole will be known. In the light of 
heaven no darkness is intermingled. Soon the anxious and 
devoted inquirer after truth, will, if a true Christian, enjoy 
the opportunity of asking the writers themselves of the 
books of Scripture, what they intended, and what they de- 
signed to teach. It is good, I do believe, both to hope and 
patiently wait for the light of eternal day, if, after all our 
efforts to clear up a few difficulties in Scripture that remain, 
we do not succeed to our utmost wishes. 

Mr. N. evidently regards those who discard all revelation, 
as unbelievers. He speaks apparently with much feeling 



§ 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 19 

concerning them. I believe that he has given them an ap- 
propriate place, in the category of religious names. The 
most liberal party, (who seem hardly to have acquired a dis- 
tinctive name yet, but probably would not dislike that of Ra- 
tionalists), begin with a very simple process in the way of 
reasoning. I have it before me, in a letter from one of the 
first philologists and antiquarians that Germany has produ- 
ced. It is this : ' The laws of nature are merely develop- 
ments of the Godhead. God cannot contradict, or be incon- 
sistent with, himself. But inasmuch as a miracle is a con- 
tradiction of the laws of nature, or at the least an inconsis- 
tency with them, therefore a miracle is impossible.' 

Now this is very short, and simple, and intelligible. At 
least we know what the writer means who says this. But 
how it can be proved*, that the God who constituted the laws 
of nature as the usual way and method of his operations, is 
not at liberty to depart from these, for the sake of ends 
which he judges important ; or how it can be proved that he 
has not done so ; is what I am not able to show or explain. 

Mr. N. calls all such reasoning shallow philosophy. I as- 
sent. But what is the philosophy, which leaves us to select 
according to the measure of our light, our own personal feel- 
ings, and our wishes, a part of the miracles of the Old Testa- 
ment and of the New, and reject all the rest ? In other words : 
Is a revelation to prescribe to us, or we to the revelation ? 
This is the simple question, divested of all the drapery thrown 
around it in order to conceal its real form and lineaments. 
Such is evidently the position of Mr. Norton. I would not 
speak with any disrespect or unkindness ; but I cannot help 
the feeling, that Mr. N. never travels on Scripture ground 
without furnishing himself, like some careful surgeons, with 
weapons adapted to probing and excision. He is ever ready 
to employ them, and prepared to sever a limb supposed to be 
withered, or a seeming excrescence, from the sacred body of 
the Scriptures, old or new. 

Does not Mr. N., moreover, give up, yea strenuously oppose 



20 § 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

the doctrine of future punishment, or certainly, at least, 
of eternal punishment ? Now if this position of his is true, 
of what great consequence can he deem it, whether the New 
Testament is believed or disbelieved ? For, in the first place, 
who, on his ground, can draw the line in all cases between 
what we are to believe, and what we are to reject ? Then, 
in the second place, if the doctrine of all future punishment 
of sin is rejected, no wise man can deem it of importance to 
give himself any solicitude about religion. 

It would surely be a curious phenomenon in the religious 
world, and a matter of no small importance to the uninitiated, 
should Mr. N. publish an expurgated edition of the Scrip- 
tures, both New and Old, and let the public know what true 
and reasonable Christianity (as estimated by him) demands 
and expects of us. Or if he would even republish selections 
from some Catechism, say the Racovian, with additions and al- 
terations suited to these enlightened days, might he not do a 
great service to the cause of liberal Christianity ? To me, 
however, at present it seems, that Mr. N. has a very brief 
creed, which might be expressed in a single sentence, namely : 
" I do not believe what the Christian churches in general do 
believe." 

As to his more liberal opponents among the class of Lib- 
erals, I have but a word to say. I commend their honest and 
open-hearted course. They openly and avowedly discard all 
that is of a miraculous nature, and by consequence all the 
books of Scripture, which either assert things of a miraculous 
nature, or are built upon that foundation. As the popular 
saying is : They go for the whole. For my own part I like 
this. We know where they are, and where we have to meet 
them. But in controversy with Mr. N, we never know on 
what ground we are treading. We refer, for example, to 
facts or declarations recorded in the Scripture, in order to il- 
lustrate or confirm any position that we have taken. But 
Mi\ N. meets us at once with the avowal, that he does not 
regard that fact or those declarations, appealed to, as entitled 



§ 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 21 

to any credit. So, we have, in our efforts to oppose him, all 
the while been merely sowing to the wind, and at last must of 
course reap — no very promising harvest. 

Some of the high Liberals, as it seems to me, would be 
Straussites to the full extent, if they well knew what Strauss or 
Hegel in all cases really maintains. Alas ! there are few heads, 
among us, from which spring the prominences appropriate 
to making such a discovery. Thus much, however, these Lib- 
erals seem to themselves to understand, and thus much they 
maintain, viz., that God is an impersonal being, the to mtv 
of the Universe ; and that he develops personality only in 
rational beings, and for a little season at a time. In the mean- 
while the argument against miracles, which has been stated 
above, is fully admitted by them, and the Scriptures are 
brought before its tribunal. But here I must demur. If the 
Godhead is an impersonal and unconscious being, as they as- 
sert, then how can it be impossible that the laws of nature 
should ehange ? If there be no mind, and no almighty pow- 
er to direct and secure the natural order of things, what hin- 
ders these things from developing themselves in different 
ways ? Why may they not assume every shape, and go one 
way as well as another ? What is it which renders secure 
and constant, the uniformity of things ? 

But I must desist, or I shall intrench upon the main ob- 
ject of my book. I cannot conclude these introductory re- 
marks, however, without saying, that so far as I know, all 
who sympathise with me in their theological views, feel much 
better satisfied with the honest and open avowal of the high 
Liberals, than with the ambiguous, reserved, non-committal 
creed of the more moderate class of Liberalists. The High 
Liberals or Rationalists are willing to stand before the 
world in the character which they really sustain. I do not 
think the same can be said with truth of their shrinking and 
non-committal brethren. 

In canvassing the subject of the ancient Jewish Canon of 
Scripture, it is not my design to exhibit a mere skeleton of 
the subject. It is not with the view of answering merely 



22 § 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

what Mr. Norton has said respecting the Jewish Canon, that 
I have been induced to take up my pen. I feel as one may 
be naturally supposed to feel, who has spent his life in the 
instruction of youth, i. e. I feel a strong desire to communi- 
cate something on this important subject, if it be in my pow- 
er, which may aid young theologians in forming more satis- 
factory and well grounded opinions about the extent and au- 
thority and obligation of the Old Testament Scriptures. I 
desire to spe ak of the labours of others before me, in regard 
to this matter, with all proper respect and deference ; but is 
it too much to say, that we have in English no book on this 
subject, which is sufficiently historico-critical to answer in a 
satisfactory manner all the present demands on sacred litera- 
ture ? If there be such an one, it is unknown to me. At 
least I know thus much, viz., that for years I wandered in 
the dark in relation to this matter, not being satisfied with 
the evidence before me, and not knowing where to go for better 
views. If I do not wholly mistake the true state of the case, 
there is a great number of pastors in our country in the same 
predicament. All young students in theology must of course 
be somewhat in the same predicament. It is an unpleasant 
one. The mind hesitates not only as to what kind of reliance 
to place on certain books, at least, of the Old Testament, but 
also as to what relation the whole bears to the New Testa- 
ment, in regard to authority and obligation. The use which 
should be made of much of the Old Testament must, in this 
state of the mind, necessarily become a matter of doubt and 
perplexity. 

My present object is, to aid, if it be within my power, in 
the removal of a part at least of these difficulties. I design to 
produce the evidence that may be gathered from antiquity, 
as to the extent of that Canon of Scripture which our Saviour 
and his apostles regarded and appealed to as divine and ob- 
ligatory. If this was the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
as then received by the Jews in general ; and if it can be 
shown that this Canon was the same which is now comprised 
in the Hebrew Scriptures ; then the doubts and difficulties 



§ 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 28 

which many entertain in regard to the Old Testament, or in 
respect to some parts of it, may be removed. The authority 
of Christ and his apostles to determine such a matter, should 
not be called in question ; I would even say, cannot be con- 
sistently called in question, by any one who professes to be a 
Christian. 

Some things have been presented to my notice, in the 
course of the reading and reflection through which I have 
passed in order to prepare for writing the present treatise, 
which do not seem to me to have been adequately, or in 
some respects correctly, developed in the pages of the lead- 
ing writers on the subject of the Old Testament Canon. 
Things absolutely new, I do not promise to bring before the 
reader. But there are some things, that have been noticed 
by even the more thorough investigators, which ought in jus- 
tice to be placed in a new attitude, in order that they should 
be seen in their true light. Something of the task of doing 
this, I would hope to perform. One thing at least will be 
achieved by the present work, if it does not miss its mark ; 
and this is, the presenting in a body, and regularly disposed, 
the evidence extant respecting the Old Testament Canon, 
accompanied by a historico-critical examination of the same. 
The reader, if this shall be done, will at least have the mate- 
rial before him, out of which he can make up his own opin- 
ion. 

I shall not advance to the consideration of this subject by 
taking the attitude of one who assumes the point to be prov- 
ed, and then pours forth monitions or comminations upon all 
who may even seem to doubt. For the present, I take my 
leave not only of Calvinists and Unitarians, but of all the 
sects in Christendom, yea even of theology itself, in its tech- 
nical sense, and aim to act merely the part of a historical 
inquirer, who applies to the appropriate sources of informa- 
tion, and endeavours in this way to find out what he ought to 
believe. This is the first step. The demands of intellect 
and reason must be met, in order to satisfy a reasonable 



24 §2. DEFINITION OF CANON. 

being. Then comes, in proper order, the application of re- 
sults thus won to the conscience and to the heart. 



§ 2. Definition of Canon. 

The meaning of this Greek word, (for such it is, viz. 
'Aavwv), as now employed by our churches in reference to the. 
Scriptures, hardly needs an explanation. It is employed as 
designating that list or collection of books, either of the Old 
Testament or of the New, which we are accustomed to re- 
gard as sacred or inspired, or of divine authority. But it 
was not always so employed, in ages that are past ; and the 
inquirer needs to be put on his guard, with respect to the va- 
rious uses of this word in ancient times. 

In classical Greek, the original meaning of xavwv is 
straight stick or rod, staff, measuring-rod or pole, beam of a 
balance, etc. Hence tropically, ride, norma; thence law, 
prescription, fundamental or guiding principle. Among the 
Alexandrine Greek grammarians, xavow was employed to 
denote a list or collection of ancient Greek authors, who 
would serve as models or exemplars for other writers. It 
meant what we should call classical writers. 

One sees very readily, how this succession of derivate 
meanings sprang from the original sense of the word. The 
literal idea of rod, measuring-rod, measure, was applied tro- 
pically to whatever was a rule, guide, model, or exemplar, of 
conduct or of actions, of art or of science. The Alexan- 
drine grammarians employed the word in a sense so kindred 
to that which we now give it, that the mind of every one 
must be struck by the resemblance. Those books which 
are the rule, measure, law, exemplar, of a moral and pious 
life, are the canonical books of the Scriptures, according to 
the present usage of this word. 

Among the Christian fathers the word canon obtained an 
enlarged and sometimes a technical sense. It was sometimes 
used to designate a list or catalogue of the clergy or of other 



§ 2. DEFINITION OF CANON. 25 

persons belonging to a church ; a list of psalms and hymns 
appropriate for public worship ; and even a list of furniture 
belonging to a church, etc. Very naturally it came to be 
employed to designate a list of the scriptural boois which were 
publicly read in the churches. It was not, however, until 
the third century, that these usages of the word commenced, 
or at least became common. 

Readers of the present day, in perusing the testimony of 
many of the ancient fathers and couucils respecting the canon 
of Scripture, often make great mistakes as to the meaning 
and force of the testimony. It is a fact which lies on the 
face of ancient church history, that in the latter part of the 
second century, and more in the third and fourth, other books 
besides those which were regarded as properly inspired, were 
read more or less in the churches. With the Septuagint ver- 
sion of the Old Testament, which the Oriental and African 
churches everywhere made use of, was early intermingled 
more or less of the books which we now name apocryphal, 
and which for the most part were written in Greek, and not 
long before the commencement of the Christian era. The 
leading reasons for mixing these recent productions with the 
books of the Hebrews, seem to have been the following ; 
first, they were mostly written by Jews, as the tenor of them 
demonstrates ; secondly, they were of a religious cast, and 
parts of them were adapted to useful instruction, while other 
parts communicated narratives of some interest, whether 
considered in the light of history or of allegory. But be 
this as it may, the Christian churches, at least many of 
them, in the third century and onward, admitted a number of 
the apocryphal books to be publicly read along with the 
Jewish Scriptures. Now when the word canonical was ap- 
plied in such a sense as to designate merely the books which 
were publicly read, the canonical boohs of tlie Old Testament, 
for example, would mean not only the Jewish Scriptures, but 
also such of the apocryphal books as were combined with 
them in the Septuagint Version, and were publicly read, 

a 



26 §2. DEFINITION OF CANON. 

But to say that a book was canonical, and to say that it was 
inspired, at that period and when this usage prevailed, was 
saying two very different things. There might be (and 
were) inspired books which were not publicly read ; e. g. 
such as the Apocalypse of the New Testament, and the 
Canticles of the Old Testament. On the other hand, sev- 
eral books not inspired were included in the reading canon 
of the day, i. e. in the list of books publicly readable ; e. g. 
1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, 
Judith, the Shepherd of Hennas, the Epistle of Clemens Ro- 
manus, the Revelation of Peter, etc. In regard to this matter, 
viz. the extent of the canon or list of books to be publicly read 
for profit, there was, for a long time, no fixed rule among the 
churches. Each seems to have done what was right in its 
own eyes. It was not until the fourth century, that Coun- 
cils interfered, and limited the number of books to be read in 
the churches. And these decided differently, as any one 
may see by reading the accounts of the Council at Laodieea, 
at Hippo, at Carthage, at Rome under Gelasius, and else- 
where, as given by Mansi, in his great work Sanctorum Con- 
ciliorum nov. et ampliss. Collectio, particularly in Tom. I. 
III. VIII. Indeed, in order to read these records of ancient 
times intelligibly, one must keep in mind what Jerome says, 
at the end of his enumeration of the books of the Hebrew 
canon, in his Prologus Galeatus. After naming the books in 
the Hebrew Scriptures, (the same which we now reckon as 
belonging to them), he goes on to say : " Whatever is not 
included among these, is to be placed among the apocryphal 
books," [i. e., in his idiom, among the uninspired books]. 
After particularizing various apocryphal works, he adds : 
" One reads them in the church, but he does not receive them 
among the canonical Scriptures. . . . They may be read to the 
edification of the people, but not for the purpose of establish- 
ing ecclesiastical doctrines" Jerome here plainly employs 
canonical in the sense of inspired ; contrary to the common 
usage of the preceding century. And from what he says, it 



§ 2. DEFINITION OF CANON. 27 

is plain that books for edification were read in the churches, 
for which no claims of inspiration were made, and which 
could not establish any religious doctrine. 

We often see quotations made from the fathers and from 
the decrees of councils, in order to show, that there was no 
prevailing and fixed belief in the ancient churches respect- 
ing the definite number of books which are to be considered 
as belonging to the Scriptures. How easy to commit impor- 
tant errors in relation to this subject, if one does not know 
the various uses of the word canon ! To show that a book 
belongs to the canon, i. e. was publicly readable, is not to 
show that it was even regarded as inspired ; less still will it 
show that it was in fact inspired ; on the other hand, to show 
that any book was omitted or excluded from the canon, i. e. 
was not publicly read, is showing nothing to disprove its in- 
spiration. 

As this is a matter of high importance, I would not deal 
in assertions without adequate proof. What Jerome says, 
goes directly to show that mauy books were publicly read, 
which were not at all regarded by the churches as sources of 
appeal in cases where doctrines were to be established. On 
the other hand, the case of Philastrius of Brixia, the inti- 
mate friend of Ambrose, near the close of the fourth century, 
illustrates and confirms what I have said concerning books 
not publicly read, and yet admitted to be inspired. In his 
book De JIaeresibus, c. 88, he exhibits a catalogue of canon- 
ical books, i. e. books which, as he says, ought to be read in 
the church, in which is found neither the Epistle to the He- 
brews, nor the Apocalypse. Yet in c. 60 he says, that 
" they are heretics who do not receive the Apocalypse, and 
that they have no understanding of the excellence and dig- 
nity of this writing." In c. 88 the same writer speaks of 
Scripturae adsconditae, [i. e. Scriptures apocryphal, in his 
sense of the word, viz. not to be publicly produced], " which," 
he says, " ought to be read for moral improvement by the 
perfect [i. e. full grown Christians], but not to be read by 
all." In the same way Gregory Nazianzen (Opp. H. p. 44) 



28 § 2. DEFINITION OF CANON. 

says : " I heard John the Evangelist enigmatically saying 
to such, iv dnoxQiiqiuig, [q. d. in the apocryphal ivritings, i. e. 
private ones, such as were not publicly read]. I would thou 
wert either hot or cold, etc." Yet this same writer (Life of 
Ephrem, III. p. 601) calls the Apocalypse r\ T€?,evzm'a zrjg 
%aoizog fii'filog, i. e. the last book of grace, or (in other 
words) of the New Testament dispensation. Now this same 
Gregory, (Opp. II. p. 98), in some verses reciting the books 
of Scripture, omits the Apocalypse at the end, and concludes 
his verses by saying : " ndaag 'iyug' e'i zi 8s zavzojv iy.zog, 
ovx iv yvijaioig, i. e. Thou hast all ; if there be any besides 
these, they belong not to the genuine." There is only one 
way to solve this apparent inconsistency, and that is by ap- 
plying to his case the same considerations as those which be- 
long to that of Philastrius. Gregory, in his verses, inclu- 
ded the canonical, i. e. publicly readable, books only ; in the 
other passages he gives his private opinion respecting the 
true character of the Apocalypse. 

Nothing is plainer, than that the words canonical and apoc- 
ryphal bear quite a different sense, in the works of different 
fathers and councils, in different ages and countries. Atha- 
nasius distributes the so-called Scriptures into three clas- 
ses of books, viz. canonical=inspired, apochryphal=spurious 
or deserving rejection, and books permitted to be read in the 
churches ; Epist. ad Rutin. Tom. II. p. 39 seq. Rufinus 
himself, a contemporary with Jerome, follows the same clas- 
sification ; see in Opp. Cypriani, p. 575. After specifying 
the books belonging to the present Protestant canon, which 
he calls canonical=msi>ired, he names several of the books 
belonging to our present Apochrypha together with the Shep- 
herd of Hermas and the Judgment of Peter, and says of them, 
that they are called ecclesiastical, and " are to be read in the 
churches (whence their name), but not to be produced as au- 
thority in matters of faith — non tamen proferri ad auctorita- 
tem ex his fidei confirmandam." Other books which have 
respect to religion, but are not to be read in the churches, he 
names apocryphal. 



§ 2. DEFINITION OF CANON. 29 

Jerome makes use of phraseology a little different from this. 
In the famous passage of his, in his Prologus Galeatus, he 
specifies the same Old and N. Testament books which are now 
in the Protestant canon, and then adds, that ' the books extra 
hos, i. e. not included in these, are to be ranked among the 
apochryphal, and are not in the canon.' Then, after men- 
tioning several of the books in our present Apochrypha, he 
adds, respecting some of them : " The church indeed reads 
them [in public], but does not receive them among the ca- 
nonical [inspired] Scriptures [reads them] for the edi- 
fication of the people, not to determine matters of faith." 

Thus it is perfectly apparent, that no one can read the ec- 
clesiastical fathers or the decrees of ancient councils, on the 
subject of the canonical Scriptures, and rightly understand 
and appreciate them, without narrowly watching the use of 
the technical terms employed in describing their classification. 
Canonical at one time means publicly readable ; at another, 
it is the equivalent of inspired. Apochryphal, at one time, 
means not publicly readable ; at another, it is the equivalent 
of uninspired, destitute of binding authority. 

Nor does this different usage belong exclusively to any one 
age. We find Origen dividing the religious books of his day 
into caraom'ca/=inspired, and apoeryphal=uninspired and 
(with him) unworthy of credit. Afterwards we find Eusebi- 
us dividing religious books, in relation to the New Testa- 
ment, into (a) 'OfioXoyovuevoi, i. e. the genuine and acknow- 
ledged writings of the evangelists and apostles, (b) Avzile- 
yofievot, books whose genuineness was doubted or was unset- 
tled, (c) Ao&at, books which were spurious, i. e. were not 
written by inpsired men. Besides these he mentions books 
atona xal dvoosfiij, stolid and impious. 

The result of this investigation is plain. We can under- 
stand ancient writers only by watching with the closest scrutiny 
how they employ the words canoniccd. apochryphal, ecclesias- 
tical, and the like, and for want of so doing, many a glaring 
error has crept into the works of some even recent writers on 
the subject of the canon. Another consequence is also de- 
3* 



30 § 2. DEFINITION OF CANON. 

ducible from our premises, viz., that, if Ave mean to be rightly 
understood, we must define and uniformly adhere to the mean- 
ing which we give to the words canon and canonical. 

We dismiss the subject of the New Testament canon, of 
course ; for. to canvass that, is not our present business. In 
respect to the Old Testament, what meaning shall we as- 
sign to the phrase, Canon of the Old Testament ? 

Shall we attach to the word canon the meaning of a list of 
booh that were publicly read in the Jewish Synagogue, in the 
time of Christ and his apostles ? 

Before the Babylonish exile the Jews had no synagogues. 
Previous to that time, only the Law of Moses, i. e. the Pen- 
tateuch appears to have been read once a year in the tem- 
ple. After the return from exile, and the erection of Syna- 
gogues, the Law of Moses was read in them, being distribu- 
ted into fifty-two Parashoth or sections, so that each Sabbath 
in the year might have its due proportion. When Antiochus 
Epiphanes (171 — 164 B. C.) invaded Judea, abolished the 
worship of the temple, and commanded all the copies of 
Moses' Law which could be found, to be burned, the Jewish 
synagogue, according to the Rabbies, made selections from 
the prophets, corresponding to the parashoth of the Pentateuch, 
which they called Haphtaroth (i. e. dismissions, because when 
the reading of these was finished the people were dismissed 
to their homes, see ""iBfe , to dismiss), and which were read in 
the room of the Law. After the death of Antiochus, the 
Jews reintroduced the Law with its Parashoth, and also con- 
tinued the reading of the prophetical Haphtaroth ; which is 
still practised by them. At the feast of Purim, once in a year, 
the book of Esther is also read. If we should extend there- 
fore, the Jewish canon only to the books which the Rabbies 
suppose to have been publicly read, our list would comprise 
but a moderate portion of the books which were regarded as 
of divine authority. Some books of Scripture, e. g. Canti- 
cles, and the first and last eight chapters of Ezekiel, the Jews 
did not permit any person to read, even in private, before he 
had attained the age of thirty years. Yet they did not deny 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 31 

the divine original authority of these a.7i6y.Qvcpa. We can- 
not use the word canonical, then, in respect to the Old Tes- 
tament books in the apostolic age, in the sense of including 
only the books publicly or privately permitted by the Jews to 
be read. And if we should resort to the Christian fathers 
for information, in regard to the extent of the Hebrew canon, 
we should find so much variety in the use of the word Canon, 
and such different usages in regard to the religious books to 
be publicly read, that we could receive no assistance from 
this quarter. 

It becomes a matter of necessity, then, that we should fix 
upon a sense of the word canon which is definite and intelli- 
gible ; and this being done, we must uniformly adhere to it. 
I mean, then, by the Canon of Jewish Scripture in the apos- 
tolic age, that class of books which the Jews as a people re- 
garded and treated as sacred, i. e. of divine origin and au- 
thority. This agrees with the present general usage of the 
churches, as to the words in question, and therefore will occasion 
no embarrassment and no mistake in regard to phraseology. 

The word canon, I would remark at the close, seems not 
to have been in use, in its technical sense as applied to the 
Scriptures, until the time of Origen. No trace of it can be 
found in the second century. In his Prol. ad Cant. Cantic, 
sub fine, Origen employs it ; also in Schol. ad Matt. 27: 9 ; 
in a sense like to that which I have given to it. 



§ 3. Commencement of the Canon. 

That books of this character existed among the Jews, from 
the time of Moses down to a period of some extent after the 
return from the Babylonish captivity, few have denied ; and 
none have been able to show the contrary. It is well known, 
however, among critics at least, that the Mosaic origin of 
the Pentateuch has, since the days of Semler, been called in 
question by a considerable number of German critics. At the 
time when Wolf had assailed the antiquity and genuineness of 
the Iliad and Odyssey, and spread far and wide his skepti- 



32 COMMENCEMENT OP THE CANON. 

eism on this subject, the antiquity and genuineness of the 
Pentateuch began to be attacked on the like grounds, and 
about the time of Eichhorn's death, it was considered by the 
dominant neological party in Germany, as established be- 
yond reasonable contradiction, that the Pentateuch was com- 
posed at a period near the captivity, or perhaps even after 
the return from it. By slow degrees the thousand years 
over which the Pentateuch was made to leap, in order to 
find an appropriate birth-day, began to be diminished. By 
and by it was felt by some to be necessary to assign a date 
for it which was antecedent to the time when a copy of the 
Law was found by Hilkiah the priest, in the reign of Josiah, 
B. C. 624. Of late, the date of the Pentateuch, at least of 
a large portion of it, has receded still more, even back to the 
times of Solomon or David, B. C. 1000-1040. Lately it seems, 
in part, to have made another retreat, viz. to the time of the 
Judges, or possibly even of Joshua. Such I take to be the 
view of Ewald and Tuch, and also of some other distinguish- 
ed German critics. The next step may possibly be to a 
period of time which puts the whole matter in statu quo. 
But be this as it may, I must take for granted the fact now 
more generally acknowledged, that at least some parts of the 
Pentateuch were committed to writing in the time of Moses. 
I cannot indeed even conceive how the most important laws 
of the Mosaic institution, how the Levitical ritual in all its 
minutiae, how the sketch of the tabernacle to be built with all 
its apparatus, and the account of it as built and provided 
with such apparatus, should have failed to be committed to 
writing. The ten commandments, from their importance, 
would naturally be engraved on some permanent material. 
The other two classes of composition just mentioned, are of 
such a nature, that no memory could be trusted with them. 
No later age, in case these minute particulars concerning the 
tabernacle had not been early designated, yea even by Moses, 
could have ever dreamed of making, and palming upon the 
Jews as Mosaic, such representations as these. No subse- 
quent age could have admitted a ritual like that of the Jews, 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 33 

provided it was introduced long after the death of Moses and 
Aaron, and was attributed to them. It is not possible to sup- 
pose, that any one age or generation after Moses' time, could 
be made to believe that things which they had never before 
heard of in connection with their two leaders, and things 
which they had never been taught to practice, originated from 
them, and had always been obligatory on the Jews. 

After the protracted and vehement contest about the ori- 
gin and antiquity of alphabetical writing, which grew out of 
the Homeric Wolfian controversy, and extended itself to sa- 
cred as well as profane books, we have at length come to a 
result, and that result seems to be, that no reasonable doubt can 
be entertained, that the origin of alphabetical writing among 
the Egyptians, Phenicians, and Greeks, dates far back before 
the time of Homer. The Homeric controversy was occasioned 
by the position of "Wolf in his Prolegomena, which was that 
the Iliad and the Odyssey are full of interpolations and pro- 
bable abscissions, and that they owe their present form and 
order and unity to the later writers of Greece, near or dur- 
ing the time of Pisistratus. To make this probable, it was 
necessary to show, that the poems of Homer were, for sever- 
al centuries, not reduced to writing, but only sung by chant- 
ers and rhapsodists, dotSol xul Qaipcpdoi. Of course, it be- 
came in a manner necessary to show, that the art of writing, 
at least among the Greeks, was not as old as the time of 
Homer, i. e. did not extend back to about 1000 years before 
the Christian era. Every nerve has been strained for this 
purpose ; while, on the other side, have recently been en- 
listed writers of the highest reputation. Among the com- 
batants are Wolf, Heyne, Herder, Voss, Kreuser, W. Muel- 
ler, Hermann, Nitzsch, D. C. W. Crusius, and others. Nitzsch, 
in his Historia Homeri, seems to have made an end of the 
question, whether alphabetical writing is as old as the time 
of Homer. This is now, so far as I know, generally con- 
ceded. But whether alphabetical writing was so common 
at the time of Homer, that we can reasonably suppose 
him to have been acquainted with it, and to have availed him- 



34 §3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 

self of it — that is a question, in regard to which no incon- 
siderable number of critics have stood and still stand arrayed 
in mutual opposition. 

It would be incongruous for me to turn aside for the pur- 
pose of discussing at length this question. Nevertheless, it 
has no unimportant bearing on the question which is now be- 
fore us, viz., At what period shall we date the commencement 
of the Jewish canon ? If the art of writing was not in use 
among the Greeks, until the sixth century before the Chris- 
tian era, then can it be probable, that the Hebrews, less lit- 
erary than the Greeks, practised it before that period ? 

It is not essential, indeed, to my main design, to show when 
the Pentateuch was written, nor even by whom. It may be 
a book worthy of all credit, if written by some other hand 
than that of Moses, or at some later period. If Christ and 
his apostles have sanctioned it as a sacred book, the main 
question is settled for us. It should be sacred to us, as well 
as to them. 

But to resume the subject of alphabetic writing among the 
Greeks, for a moment. It is said by the advocates of the 
Wolfian theory, that there is no Greek prose writer upon re- 
cord before the Milesian Cadmus and Pherecydes of Scyros, 
who flourished about 544 B. C. ; and that there is no writer of 
this class who is of any note, until the time of Hecataeus of 
Miletus and Pherecydes of Athens, i. e. about 50 years 
later. About the same time, that is, some 350 or more years 
later than the time of Homer, the laws of Draco were re- 
duced to writing, and these are said to have been the first 
written laws among the Greeks. Is it probable, then, it is 
asked, that the poetry of Homer was reduced to writing at a 
period some 350 or 400 years earlier ? 

But on the other hand, we may well ask : Could two 
poems, one of about 16,000 and the other of more than 
12,000 lines or verses, be brought down through so many 
centuries by mere oral and traditionary communication ? Ad- 
mitting even that there are a few interpolations in the Iliad 
and Odyssey, yet the unity and order of these poems demon- 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OP THE CANON. 35 

strate an origin from the same author ; as do also their dia- 
lect and circle of words and imagery. How could so much 
be orderly composed by any man, without some means of 
consulting what had already been composed, as he advanced 
in his work? In fact, does not the Iliad itself (Z. 168 — 9), 
by its (TTjfiara Ivyqa yoaxpag iv mvam, advert to a letter ad- 
dressed to Proetus ? At any rate, this gives a more proba- 
ble sense to the passage. See Trollope's Note in loc. Eu- 
ripides (Hec. 856 seq.) makes Hecuba say : " Alas, no mor- 
tal is free ! For he is either the slave of money, or of for- 
tune ; or else the mass of the city or written laws (vopoov 
yQacpat) coerce him." In Hippol. 856 seq. (ed. Barnes.), 
the same Euripides represents Theseus as speaking of an 
epistle or tablet (Ss'lrog) written by Phaedra to him : " "What 
then is the meaning of this appended epistle (dtlzog) from 
her dear hand ? What news does it communicate ?" In the se- 
quel he calls this SeXrog an epistle {imaroXag = literas) ; 
and still further on, he names it de'Xrog again. The time 
when Euripides represents Theseus as saying what has been 
quoted, was some 80 years before the Trojan war. In his 
Iphigenia in Aulis (1. 35 seq.), he makes the aged messen- 
ger of Agamemnon, about to be sent with a letter to Clytem- 
nestra, thus address this king : " Thou writest (yodcpeig) this 
letter, which thou boldest in thy hands, and again thou dost 
erase these letters (yga/jjiccTa), and dost seal them, and then 
unseal them, and cast the tablet on the ground, pouring forth 
large tears." The erasing (avy/eTg, dost intermingle) of the 
letters seems plainly to • point to the corrections made on a 
waxed tablet, which was done by smearing over or ming- 
ling (ovy%£ go) the wax. Here then are all the phenomena of 
writing, with sealing and unsealing of the letter. And most 
graphic is the description ; for Agamemnon is writing to his 
wife respecting their daughter Iphigenia, who was to be sa- 
crificed to Diana, in accordance with the direction of the 
prophet Calchas. He had already sent her one letter, re- 
quiring Iphigenia to be given up. Now (1. 108 seq.) he says 
to the aged messenger : " I now rewrite in this letter (dsXzov) 



36 § 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 

what is proper to be done, which you old man, saw rne by 
night sealing and unsealing. But go now, taking this letter 
[rag imaroXdg, like the Latin plur. literae] to Argos. "What 
ever this letter hides in its folds — I will tell thee by word of 
mouth all which is written in it." Several times, in the se- 
quel, is the same letter adverted to ; and so as to leave no 
possible doubt, that Euripides describes a veritable letter, 
(like the epistles of his own time), folded and sealed in the 
same way. 1 

1 In like manner, Orestes, the son of Agamemnon, is represented by 
Emipides as saying to Hermione : " I came hither, rag aug ov fievuv 
kTvivTo7M<;, not waiting for a letter from you ;" Androm. 1. 965. This, of 
course, is just at the close of the Trojan war. In Iphig. in Aul. 1. 307, 
the aged servant says to Menelaus : " Thou must not open the letter 
(de?<,rov) which I bear-." The servant complains to his master Aga- 
memnon, that Menelaus " had by violence snatched out of his hands the 
epistle" (em.aTo2.ag) of Agamemnon. In the sequel Menelaus refers to 
it, and calls it delrov. In Iphigen. in Taur., Iphigenia speaks of trans- 
mitting " a letter ((5eArov), which a captive who pitied her had written to 
her friends." In the sequel she says, that " she had no one by whom she 
could send her epistle {knioTo'kds). And again she speaks of " no mean 
reward for transmitting her light letters" (kovQuv jpapiiuTuv). Orestes 
afterwards tells her to deliver the letter (delrov) to a particular person ; 
and she in the sequel says : " I will go, and carry a letter (6e2.Tov) from 
the temple of the goddess ;" and again (1. 640) : " I will send to Argos, 
particularly to my friends, a letter (dekrov) which will tell them, etc." 
The same epistle, (de2.rog, emc-olai.) is again mentioned in 1. 727, 732, 
and in 734 she calls it ypa<j>ug. A new epistle of joyous tidings to 
Orestes is written by Iphigenia, after she is delivered from death by 
Diana, which speaks of her eTTLarolai as containing the news, " even the 
things written ev de2.ro imv." Again (1. 1446) she requests Orestes to 
inform himself what that is which is in her letter, (einaroTiag). In the Bac- 
chae, the servant of Theseus says to the captured Bacchus : " I lead thee 
captive, eKio~ro2,ulg by the [written] mandate of Pentheus." Pentheus it will 
be recollected, was the grandson of Cadmus, who lived, it is supposed. 
nearly 1500 years- B. C. The same word (eniaroldg), in the like sense, 
occurs in Hel. 1. 1665. As to de2,rog, besides the instances already adduced. 
see in Hippol. 1. 877. 1057. In Iphig. in Aul., (including some instances 
produced above), we find delrov in 1. 35. 109. 155. 307. 322. 891. 894. 
In Iphig. in Taur. 584. 760. 603. 615. 635. 640. 667. 733. 756. 791. Be- 
sides these, several instances occur in the Fragments of Euripides. 
In all these cases, let it be called to mind that the writer is speaking 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OP THE CANON. 37 

The simple question now is, whether this distinguished 
poet would have made out such a description as this, and in- 
troduced Agamemnon in such a manner, if the persuasion 
had not been general, and even universal, at his time, that 
the art of writing was familiar to the Grecian chiefs at the 
siege of Troy. One cannot well bring himself to attribute a 
gross anachronism and incongruity to such a writer. 

In the like manner Sophocles (Trach. 157) makes Dejan- 
eira speak of a dt'Xrov ysyQa^jisvrjv or written will of Hercu- 
les, in favour of her, when he left her house. This was 
some time before the Trojan war. In Sophocles' Antigone, 
he makes her speak of the ayoumza Qecov vpfiifia, in contrast 
with the K7]Qvyjjaza of Creon. Does not the nature of the 
contrast here presented, allude plainly to the art of writing ? 
And would these two consummate poets, distinguished as 
much for their knowledge as their skill and taste, commit 
such an anachronism as the Wolfian theory would make them 
guilty of? Suppose a poet of Boston should write a tragedy 
founded on the overthrow and death of one of the native 
Indian kings in this country some five centuries ago, and 
should introduce him as writing letters to his wife ? "Would a 
Boston audience endure this without hissing the play down? 

I know it has been remarked, in the way of answer to the 
argument seemingly deducible from this in favour of the early 
discovery of alphabetic writing, that the poets have liberty to 
feign what they please, in making out the fable of their tra- 
gedies. But I am persuaded that this remark must be limited 
to bounds which forbid absolute and palpable incongruities. 
Very extravagantly and unaccountably the actors of a fabu- 
lous age may be represented as demeaning themselves, and 
all is well : because extraordinary actions are expected, and 
extraordinary powers of performing them are presupposed. 
But this is something exceedingly diverse from evident and 

of persons and occurrencies at or before the siege of Troy. It is impos- 
sible therefore to resist the impression, that he regarded epistolary cor- 
respondence as a thing then well known and commonly practised, 
certainlv among persons of the higher rank. 
4 



38 § 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 

monstrous incongruities in circumstantial matters, which be- 
long not to persons but to things. There would not be a 
man or woman in a Boston audience, present at the exhibi- 
tion of such a play as has just been mentioned, who would 
not in an instant perceive the gross incongruity of putting the 
wild Indian chief to the writing of letters ; and who would 
not feel that the author of the play was stupidly ignorant, or 
else destitute of all taste, or silly enough to believe that his 
audience would all be stupidly ignorant. I aver, then, that 
the familiar and often repeated usage of Euripides, of Sopho- 
cles, (and even of Aeschylus), in introducing epistolary com- 
munication among the ancients at and before the siege of 
Troy, implies of course, a like belief on the part of the Athe- 
nian public, who were so sensitive as to even the minutest 
things in a player, that they would spontaneously correct a false 
accent or a wi'ong quantity. But if alphabetic writing began 
in Greece only about the middle of the sixth century B. C, 
then this public could not possibly have been brought to the 
general or rather universal belief, that it wasvfour or five cen- 
turies older, to say the least ; for in a place like Athens, there 
must have been some well grounded knowledge in respect to 
such a mattei-. The common usage of the great tragic poets, 
in the introduction of epistolary communication among remote 
ancients, shows with certainty what the public sentiment at 
Athens was, in respect to this matter. And how can any one 
account for such a public sentiment, on the ground that writ- 
ing began among the Grecians only in the sixth century ? 
This would be far more difficult, than to believe that the 
sentiment was grounded upon matter of fact ? 

But we have something perhaps more definite and certain, 
than these allusions in the great poets. Plutarch (in Ly- 
curg.), Aelian (Var. Hist. XIII. 4), Dio Chrysostom (Orat. 
II. p. 87), Heraclides of Siuope (Gronov. Thesaurus Ant. 
Graec. VI. p. 2823), all testify that Lycurgus, the great 
lawgiver of Sparta, brought the poems of Homer from Crete, 
where he met with them among the posterity of Creophy- 
lus; which latter person was, (as tradition says), a son-in-law, 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 39 

or teacher, or guest of Homer. Plutarch and Aelian both 
aver, that in the land of European Greece, previous to this 
period, only an obscure tradition about Homer's poems ex- 
isted, and one and another possessed some extracts from them. 
Lycurgus employed chanters and rhapsodists to recite them 
to his people, in order to inspire them with a martial spirit. 
Now Lycurgus lived almost nine centuries before the Chris- 
tian era ; and if he found the complete poems of Homer in 
writing, and copied them, (as is most explicitly affirmed by 
the historians just mentioned), this would seem to settle the 
question as to the antiquity of the written works of Homer. 
Wolf, Mueller, and others, examine this testimony adunco na- 
so. No wonder ; for it prostrates the fanciful edifice which 
they have reared. But Crusius (Praef . to his edit, of Muel- 
ler) has given the subject a fair investigation. 

The appeal to the so-called Homeridae, chanters, and rhap- 
sodists, (doidof, oaU'cydoi), as evidence that Homer's poems 
must have been diffused and preserved for a long time inde- 
pendently of writing, is not at all conclusive. The Homeridae 
were nothing more than an ancient and higher class of rhap- 
sodists. The chanters and rhapsodists differed only in 
name, and perhaps in some peculiarities in the modes of re- 
citation or recitativo. All were the vica-voce reciters of Ho- 
mer ; and, in the earlier times, they recited without the im- 
mediate aid of manuscripts in the act of recitation. They 
wandered from place to place, reciting wherever they could 
find encouragement and remuneration. But to argue from 
this, as many critics have done, that Homer's poetry could 
not at the same time have existed in writing, betrays but an 
indifferent knowledge of the customs of antiquity and spe- 
cially of the East The mass of Greeks, in Europe and Asia, 
could not read in those times. The price of manuscripts 
ample enough to comprise the Iliad and Odyssey, was be- 
yond the reach of any but the rich. Yet the Grecian peo- 
ple were of a romantic and poetic turn of mind. The poems 
of Homer greatly delighted them. Hence the profitable em- 
ployment of the rhapsodists. The brief and popular songs of 



40 

times more ancient than the age of Homer, probably were 
not committed to writing, but were diffused and preserved 
merely by oral tradition. They were sung or chanted of 
course, without the aid, and without the need, of any written 
copy. When Homer came to be sung in like manner, and 
to be the popular poet of the Greeks, he was recited without 
book. This gave an opportunity for the rhapsodists to do, 
what their successors in office still do in Egypt and Persia 
and other countries of the East, that is, it gave opportunity 
to act, as well as recite, the works of Homer. This was a 
great advantage to the rhapsodists, since they could impart a 
much more lively interest to their readers, by adopting such 
a method of exhibition. 

To my own mind, the fact that there were chanters and 
rhapsodists of Homer's works, soon after they were compo- 
sed, and for some centuries onward, is far enough from proving 
that these works were not reduced to writing. Let us look 
at experience and matters of fact. The Thousand and One 
Nights of the Arabians has always from the time of its com- 
position been in writing, as all agree ; for it is a production 
some centuries later than the era of Mohammed. Yet in 
Persia and Egypt, even in recent times, very few copies of 
this most entertaining and truly oriental work exist, since 
neither of these nations have availed themselves of the art of 
printing ; at least not until these some ten years past, and 
now only to a small extent. Sir John Malcolm, in his Notes 
on Persia, tells us, that on festal occasions and at levees, at 
the court of Persia, the chanters or rhapsodists are a regular 
part of the entertainment. He speaks of them as ready to 
recite, at an almost indefinite length, the Thousand and One, 
the poems of Hafiz, and the works of other distinguished Per- 
sian writers, and as being employed by the nobles and the rich 
for this purpose. He describes them as not simply reciting, 
but acting. He tells us that no actor on the stages of Lon- 
don or Paris, ever played his part more significantly and sat- 
isfactorily. One of Sir John's attendants, who did not un- 
derstand Persian, was about to withdraw, on one of the fes- 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 41 

tal occasions, when the rhapsoclist rose to commence his exhi- 
bition. The latter, seeing him in the attitude of withdrawing, 
inquired the reason. He was told, that it was because he did 
not understand the Persian language. The actor 1'eplied, 
that this was of little consequence ; for he would make him- 
self quite intelligible to him, notwithstanding this. The 
English gentleman remained, and the actor most amply re- 
deemed his pledge. 

This gives us an instructive view of the interest which the 
rhapsodists of Homer might, and probably did, impart to their 
recitations ; and shows that they might find full employ, not- 
withstanding the existence of Mss. 

The case is the same in Egypt. Mr. Lane, in his admi- 
rable work on the Modern Egyptians, has given us a full ac- 
count of their rhapsodists. The most numerous class of 
them is the Sho'ara, i. e. reciters of poetry, of which there 
are about fifty in Cairo. These confine themselves to the 
romance of Abu Zeyd, which is full of poetic passages. The 
prose they recite with measured tone ; the poetry with ac- 
companying instrumental music. The next class (about thirty 
of them in Cairo) are called Mokadditeen, i. e. Story-tellers ; 
who recite nothing but the Life of Zahir, a romance founded 
on the story of an Egyptian prince who bore that name. It 
is very voluminous and expensive ; and consequently, a know- 
ledge of the work, such as it is, is mainly kept up by the viva 
voce reciters. There is, besides these, a small class of reciters 
of Cairo, who are called Antereeyah, in consequence of recit- 
ing the romance of Antar, which has been recently transla- 
ted into English. Occasionally this class of persons extend 
their recitations to other works. 

Such then are the oriental modes of entertainment in the 
way of reading or recitation. Where the great mass of the 
population are unable to read ; where printing is not introdu- 
ced, and the price of Mss. is exceedingly dear ; where the in- 
dolent habits of the Turks, Arabians, and Persians, forbid or at 
least dissuade from the effort necessary to read a book ; spe- 
cially where a book needs comment and explanation ; rhapso- 
4* 



42 § 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 

dists come in and find ample and profitable employment. So 
it doubtless was in Greece ; so,, in western Asia Minor. 

But Mr. Lane states one fact in regard to these rhapso- 
dists, which strikes me as of serious import, in respect to the 
matter before us. He says, that a few years previous to his 
sojourn in Egypt, the romance of Seyf Zul-l-Yezen abound- 
ing in tales of wonder, and the Thousand and One Nights. 
were the subject of frequent recitation. But as these 
works became very scarce and very dear, the rhapsodists 
could not afford to purchase them in order to prepare for re- 
citation, and so they discontinued the practice. These last 
named works are far superior to the others which are now re- 
cited, and would be preferred by the people, if they might 
have them presented. But this cannot be done for the rea- 
sons just stated. 

This throws light on the recitations of the Homeric rhap- 
sodists. Had they not been able to resort to some Ms. 
copy of Homer, to refresh their memory, or to store it, 
they could never, or at least they would never, have brought 
down two poems of nearly 80,000 lines, through so many 
centuries. I allow that the force of memory is great, even 
surprising, where a man of talent gives himself wholly to 
the cultivation of it. Xenophon expressly asserts (Sympos. 
III. 6), that there were several persons at Athens, in his time, 
who could repeat memoriter the whole of the Iliad and Odys- 
sey. So among the Persians and Arabians, there has been 
many a rhapsodist who could repeat the whole of the Thou- 
sand and One Nights, or other works of equal length. But af- 
ter all, such a gift is occasional, and somewhat rare. On a 
succession of such persons, so as accurately to transmit the 
Iliad and Odyssey down through three or four centuries, one 
can place no safe dependence. The thing is incredible. The 
Egyptian and Persian rhapsodists every where intermingle, 
with what they recite, so much of their own compositions, 
both in poetry and in prose, as may serve to expand, embel- 
lish, or explain their author. Often, men of talents among 
their rhapsodists become so excited by the applause of their 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OP THE CANON. 43 

audience, that they improvise, in a manner that exceeds the 
originals. So it cannot have fared with Homer ; for the 
present state of his works — so little being in them which is 
incongruous or superfluous — demonstrates that improvisation 
has not wrought sensibly upon them by additions or diminu- 
tions, and of course that they can never have been long sub- 
jected to its sole influence. 

We may get along quite well as to oral tradition, when it 
is said to have preserved short songs, narrations, allegories, 
or fables, independently of written records. But to think of 
an Iliad and an Odyssey being preserved for centuries sub- 
stantially inviolate, in this manner, requires much moi'e cre- 
dulity, than it does to believe that alphabetical writing exist- 
ed a considerable time before the era of Moses. At least, I 
cannot bring my own mind to a state of doubt or hesitation 
in regard to this whole matter. 

I am fully aware of the testimony of Josephus, in relation 
to the subject of ancient alphabetic writing in Greece. In 
his Contra Apion. I. 2, he draws the contrast between the 
antiquity of Greek and Hebrew letters, and, as might natu- 
rally be expected from a Jew, greatly to the advantage of 
the latter. He says that even the Greeks themselves make 
their boast of learning their letters from Cadmus ; that they 
have no monumental inscriptions older than the siege of 
Troy ; and no book older than the poetry of Homer. In 
respect to this, also, and whether the Grecians at the siege of 
Troy were acquainted with the use of letters, he says ques- 
tions have arisen, and that the better opinion is, that the 
Greeks who destroyed Ilium were ignorant of letters. As to 
Homer he says : " qsaaiv ov8e rovzov iv yQafifiaat tijv avzov 
7Toi'}j6ir xazaXmeu', d).Xa dtafivtftiovevofisvqv ex zai> dofidzcov 
vgzsqov avvte&ijvai, xcu did rovzo noXldg iv avzij 6%siv rdg 
diacpwviag • i. e. they say that this one [Homer] did not leave 
his poem in letters [writing], but that being kept in remem- 
brance by chanting, it was subsequently adjusted (composed 
or put together), and that it was because of this that so many 
incongruities were found in it." Such was the impression 



44 § 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 

which Josephus received from Greeks with whom he was 
conversant, and he was very ready to receive it, because it 
made directly for the support of his opinion in favour of the 
greater antiquity of the Hebrew literature. But we learn 
from him, that it was then a contested question, whether the 
Greeks who besieged Troy were acquainted with letters ; so 
that on the face of his testimony it appears that the point was 
regarded as a doubtful one. We have seen, however, that 
Euripides and Sophocles make appeals to Athenian audiences 
in relation to this subject, about four centuries &fore the 
Christian era, which leave no reasonable doubt as to what 
the general opinion at Athens then was. 

Josephus by using ovvte&tjvai in respect to the arrange- 
ment of Homer's poems, doubtless has reference to the story 
so often repeated, and from a period somewhat before the 
Christian era (Cic. de Orat. III. 34. Pausan. III. 26. Aelian. 
Var. Hist. XIII. 14), viz., that Solon, and specially Pisistratus 
and his sons the Pisistratidae, put together the disjointed and 
Sibylline fragments of the Iliad and Odyssey, and first redu- 
ced them to writing, as well as to unity, regularity and order. 
All the rhapsodists, as the story goes, far and near, were col- 
lected by Pisistratus, and from them he obtained all the scat- 
tered fragments of the epic bard, and put them together as 
well as he could, summoning to his aid all the literary corps 
of Athens. So much of all this is doubtless true, namely, that 
Solon made an arrangement of the parts of Homer, which 
were to be chanted at the Uava&^vaia, i. e. the feast of Mi- 
nerva, which was held once in five years. All could not be 
then sung, and Solon decided how much should be sung, and 
in what order. Pisistratus and his son Hipparchus pushed 
criticism much further. They obtained all accessible evi- 
dence of what belonged to Homer, and of what quality it 
was, and arranged the result in the best manner they could. 
To the famous Aristarchus of Samothrace (fl. B. C. 200), is 
generally attributed the division of the Iliad and Odyssey 
into twenty-four books each. 

Such is the sum of tradition, in regard to this subject. But 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 45 

that letters were not known in Greece earlier than the time of 
Solon and Pisistratus, (about 550 B. C), no one will now 
credit, since the publication of Nitzsch's Historia Homeri. 
But how much the Diaskeuastai just mentioned, or others 
after them, changed the text or the order of Homer, it is in 
vain now to surmise. The internal evidence of Homer's 
works is most unequivocally against any considerable inter- 
polation. The unity of his poems, their dialect, the spirit of 
all the parts, (with slight exceptions), show a unity of au- 
thorship, and a unity of purpose, combined with a plan and 
a regularity which could not arise from diverse minds. A 
man might as well say, that the different parts of a watch 
were, in the first instance, manufactured by different persons 
without any concert ; and that being accidentally brought 
together, they all perfectly fitted each other, and made a true 
time-keeper, which all succeeding watch-makers have only 
imitated. "Who would believe such an account of the origin 
of watches ? And yet it is even more credible, than the fa- 
bled composition of Homer by poets of different ages and 
different countries. All agree that Homer's is the greatest 
poem of antiquity ; most say that it is the greatest of any or 
all ages. How was such a rare union of Homer & Co. 
brought about ? "We can find only now and then a solitary 
example of poetry like his among nations, during the whole 
period of their existence ; a Virgil in Rome, a Shakspeare 
and a Milton in England, a Daute in Italy. How could 
Greece, in its barbarian ages between 600 and 1000 B. C, 
produce a whole host of geniuses like to Homer, and never 
one afterwards ? 

But I am digressing. The interest of the subject has led 
me away from my more direct purpose. I must simply state 
the result ; which is, that the use of letters was known in 
Greece some time before the age of Homer ; that it was not 
very common, however, until the sixth century B. C. ; that 
the existence of chanters and rhapsodists of Homer at a pre- 
ceding period, is no proof at all against the existence of his 
poems in a written form during that period ; that the unity 



46 § 3. COMMENCEMENT OP THE CANON. 

and diction and dialect of his works demonstrate unity of au- 
thorship, and a good state of preservation in respect to his 
poems ; and that the thing in itself is all but absolutely in- 
credible, that poems of nearly 30,000 lines could have been 
so preserved for more than three centuries, without having 
been reduced to writing. 

Appeal then to the case of the Greeks, and confident ap- 
peal such as has been made in respect to the works of Homer, 
to prove the later origin of letters among the Hebrews, and 
consequently the impossibility of Moses' having written the 
Pentateuch, can no longer be heard with approbation or as- 
sent. It is too late to bring forward such allegations among 
us. In Germany, at the time when, through the example of 
Wolf and Heyne, the recent destructive criticism, (as some of 
our German cousins now name it), was in the ascendant, one 
was famous ' according to the number of axes and hammers 
which he lifted up' against the ancient temple of the Muses, 
whether sacred or profane. Commenta opinionum delet dies. 
It is too late to palm upon the literary public any longer, the 
scheme of the Destructives. 

We return to the Hebrews. Whether Greece possessed 
letters very early, or did not, would in reality affect but little 
the case before us. Moses and the Hebrews came out of 
Egypt, after a long residence there. Moses was brought up 
at the Egyptian court, and was skilled in all the learning of 
the Egyptians ; and Gesenius has come, after all his palaeo- 
graphical researches, and notwithstanding his former opinion 
that the Pentateuch was composed near the close of the He- 
brew monarchy, fully to the conclusion, that alphabetical writ- 
ing was known in Egypt at least 2000 years before the Chris- 
tian era, and among the Phenicians at a period but little later. 
Nor does he stand alone, even among the Neologists. Ewald 
and von Lengerke, among the most liberal of the Liberals, and 
both now engaged in publishing a criti co-religious history of 
the Hebrews, have avowed their opinions in regard to the 
antiquity of writing among the people of Western Asia, in a 
manner not to be misunderstood. Ewald, in his Geschichte des 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OP THE CANON. 47 

Volkes Israel (Israelitish History, 1843), says (p. 64) : "In 
respect to the time of Moses, suggestions from the most di- 
verse sources, even those of the earliest times, agree in this. 
viz., that writing was already in use." Again (p. 66) he 
says : " That writing was practised at the time of Moses, the 
two tables of the Law prove beyond contradiction ; and since 
the art of writing was then actually in existence, the begin- 
nings of historical composition must speedily appeal - , for the 
importance of the Mosaic period was a sufficient excitement 
to engage in it." In p. 69, speaking of the nations of Wes- 
tern Asia he says : " Writing among these nations always 
appears to be more ancient than any history is able to dis- 
close." Again, on the same page : " So much is beyond 
mistake, viz. that it [the art of writing] was a privilege en- 
joyed by the Shemitish nations a long time before Moses made 
his appearance in history." Once more, on p. 71 he says : 
" So then the position remains firm, that, since the time of 
Moses, historical writing in Hebrew might be practised, and 
was practised." He means to say, that at least it must have 
begun as early as the time of Moses. 

Von Lengerke in his Canaan or national and religious 
History of the Jews, after referring to the ancient name of 
Debir, viz. Qirjath Sepher ("SO n?"ip , i. e. booh-town), says : 
"At all events, it seems historically to follow, from this 
ancient name, that the use of writing among the inhabitants 
of the land [Palestine] took its rise in very ancient times, 
before the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt ;" p. xxxii. 
Again (p. xxxiii.) he says : " Among whatever original peo- 
ple of Shemitish origin the invention of writing is to be sought, 
or to whatever early period it must be assigned, still the in- 
vention must be supposed to precede Moses by a long period 
of time, so far as it respects the Egyptians." Again (p. xxxv.) 
he says : " Undoubtedly at Moses' time, a commencement of 
historical writing among the Hebrews had been made." 

No one who knows the sentiments of these two distinguish- 
ed Hebrew scholars and critics, will think of accusing them 
of any leaning towards orthodoxy. They have been forced, 



48 § 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 

by pure historical considerations, upon the acknowledgment 
of these facts ; and so must Mr. Norton have been, had he 
paid but a moderate attention to the critical history of the 
art of writing. Even De Wette, the coryphaeus of doubters, 
says : " With Moses the author and lawgiver of the Hebrew 
State, the introduction of the art of writing among them may 
well be assumed as commencing ;" Einl. ins. Alt. Test. § 12. 
Our own countryman then, Mr. Norton, who so often speaks 
with not a little severity of the skepticism of the Germans, 
plainly outdoes the very leaders of dubitation among them, in 
the case before us. 

We may then, in sketching the early history of the He- 
brew canon, assume it as a thing altogether probable, if not 
quite certain, that in Moses' time the Pentateuch, or at least 
the leading parts of it, were committed to writing. If writing 
was in use, the fundamental laws and regulations, civil, social, 
ritual, or religious, must needs have been recorded. Such 
parts of the Pentateuch as the last part of Exodus, which 
have respect to the sketching of a plan for the tabernacle, 
and the corresponding detail of the completion of it in accord- 
ance with this plan, it could never have entered into the mind 
of an impostor in after ages to draw out in writing, at least in 
such a way. That there are a few paragraphs and some oc- 
casional glosses of an ancient word, added by a later hand to 
the Pentateuch, one may very readily concede ; e. g. the la- 
ter succession of the dukes of Edom in Gen. xxxvi. ; the ac- 
count of Moses' death and burial, Deut. xxxiv. ; and here 
and there the more recent names of several towns appended 
to the ancient appellations. But the very fact that these 
stand out so prominently from the rest of the composition, is 
a good argument in favour of the antiquity and genuineness 
of the book at large. 

It does not comport with my design to examine, with any 
minuteness and in particular, the arguments against (he early 
composition of the Pentateuch, which are alleged to be drawn 
from the internal state of its various books, and especially 
from those parts of the several books which wear the appear- 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 49 

ance of distinct composition, if not the marks of a foreign 
hand. Nor can I here produce the many arguments drawn 
from the internal state and character of the Pentateuch, in 
order to establish its Mosaic origin. In my own private 
judgment, I must regard the latter as far outweighing the for- 
mer. But all the detail of these matters belongs only to a 
critico-exegetical Introduction to the Old Testament, on an 
extended plan, like that of Hengstenberg, of Havernick, and 
others. Enough for my purpose, that the. Pentateuch is re- 
cognized as the work of Moses, by all the historians and pro- 
phets of the Old Testament ; by the Apochryphal writers, by 
Philo, Josephus, and all the New Testament writers, and ex- 
pressly and repeatedly by Christ himself; as will be seen 
when we come to produce the evidence collected from all these 
various sources. Enough that this matter rests on the univer- 
sal tradition and belief of the Jews in all ages ; in the same 
manner as the authorship of the Iliad, or the Odyssey, or of the 
Eneid, or of the Commentarii De Bello Gallico, or the work 
de Bello Peloponnesiaco, and the like; rests on the traditiona- 
ry and universal belief of the nations to whom these works 
respectively belong. What is concerned with the general 
critical history of the Pentateuch has already been touched 
upon. It is clear that it might have been written, (some small 
portions of it and some later explanations of ancient names 
excepted), by the great Hebrew legislator. If we may put 
any faith in united and constant and invariable ancient tes- 
timony, it was "written by him. At all events, it was in 
the Jewish Canon before our Saviour's time, and was spo- 
ken of frequently by him, and by his apostles as the work of 
Moses. This is enough for my main purpose, as I am now 
more concerned with its authority and its right to a place in 
the Canon, than I am with the detail that is connected with 
a critical dissection of the work, and a discussion of its parts 
all and singular. 

I must not, however, dismiss it here, without adverting for 
a few moments, to the fiery trials through which this portion 
of the Hebrew Scriptures has had to pass. 
5 



50 § 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 

Soon after the era introduced by Sender, doubts began to 
be raised concerning the early composition of the Pentateuch. 
Almost every marked period from Joshua down to the return 
from the Babylonish exile, has been fixed upon by different 
writers, as a period appropriate to the production of this work. 
To Ezra some have assigned the task of producing it; in 
which, if we may hearken to them, he engaged in order that 
he might confirm and perpetuate the ritual introduced by 
him. To Hilkiah the priest, with the connivance of Josiah, 
Mr. N. and others have felt inclined to attribute it, at the 
period when a copy of the Law is said to have been discover- 
ed in the temple. Somewhere near this period, Gesenius and 
De \Vette once placed it ; but both of them, in later times, 
have been rather inclined to recede from this, and to look to 
an earlier period. The subject has been through almost 
boundless discussion, and a great variety of opinions have been 
broached respecting the matter, until recently it has taken a 
turn somewhat new. The Haut Ton of criticism in Germa- 
ny now compounds between the old opinions and the new 
theories. Ewald and Lengerke, in the works cited above, 
both admit a ground-work of the Pentateuch (including 
Joshua). But as to the extent of this they differ, each one 
deciding according to his subjective feelings. The leading 
laws and ordinances of the Pentateuch are admitted to be- 
long to the time of Moses. Ewald supposes that they were 
written down at that period. Then we have, secondly, his- 
torical portions of the Pentateuch, written, as Ewald judges, 
not by prophets, but before this order of men appeared among 
the Hebrews — compositions " not earlier than the second half 
of the Judges' period, and certainly not later than this ;" 
Ewald Volkes Geschich. p. 79. Then come next, accord- 
ing to him, a prophetic order of historical writers, about 
the time of Solomon, or not long after his reign. Next comes 
a Narrator, distinguished for his talents and his religious zeal, 
who is to be placed somewhere near the period of Elijah and 
Joel (about 900 B. C). His compositions are of a marked 
character and style, and easily distinguished from the rest of 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 51 

the Pentateuch. Then comes a fourth Narrator, different 
from all the others, whose compositions exhibit references to 
events so late, that we cannot place him earlier than about 
the middle of the eighth century B. C, not far from the time 
of Isaiah and Micah. He was followed by the Deuteronomist, 
i. e. the writer of Deuteronomy, who, as Ewald thinks, 
lived sometime during the latter half of Manasseh's reign, 
and in Egypt ; p. 1 GO. Besides all these original authors, 
and collectors, and redactors, and supplementarists, there are 
many pieces of composition in the book of Genesis, and sev- 
eral in other books of the Pentateuch, which belong to wri- 
ters not specified in this statement, and which were selected 
from all quarters, domestic and foreign. Thus, just before 
the Babylonish exile, the great Collectaneum, or Corpus Auc- 
torum Omnium, was brought to a close. 

Lengerke, whose work is later (1844), admits a ground- 
work; but, with the exception of some laws, etc., it was not 
composed until the time of Solomon ; p. xci. Next comes 
a Supplementarist, who must have lived sometime in the 
eighth century ; p. cii. Then comes the Deuteronomist, as 
in Ewald ; but he is assigned by Lengerke to the time of 
Josiah, about 624, B. C. The book of Joshua has only a 
ground-work and a Supplementarist. 

Each of these writers is so confident in his critical power 
of discrimination, that he proceeds boldly to point out all the 
respective portions of the Pentateuch assignable to each au- 
thor or supplementarist ; not doubting in the least, that the 
internal indicia exhibited by the style and matter are plain 
and decisive in regard to their respective theories. But here 
arises a difficulty. Let us admit (as we must), that both of 
these critics are fine Hebrew scholars, and very well read in 
all matters pertaining to the history or philology of the He- 
brews ; still the question comes up : How can these writers, 
each being sure that he sees everything so clearly, differ so 
widely from each other ? Ewald finds internal evidence of a 
Ground-work, four Narrators, a Deuteronomist, and of many 
miscellaneous compositions of others that have been intro- 



52 § 3. COMMENCEMENT OP THE CANON. 

duced by them into the Pentateuch. Lengerke supposes a 
Groundwork, a Snpplementarist, and a Deuteronomist. The 
respective periods of each, (some laws, etc. excepted), are 
different. And yet each judges from internal evidence and 
subjective feeling. Each is sure that he can appreciate all 
the niceties and slight diversities of style and diction, and 
therefore cannot be mistaken. Each knows, (in his own 
view with certainty), how many authors of the Pentateuch 
there are; while still one reckons six and the other three. 
And all this — ex cathedra, like a simple avzog eyy, or dixit 
Mcujister. 

I will not ask now, ' Who shall decide, when Doctors dis- 
agree ? ' But I may, with all becoming deference, be per- 
mitted to say, that two representations so widely different 
cannot be both true. This needs no proof. I do most sin- 
cerely believe, that neither of them is true. In some things, 
however, they both agree ; e. g. that writing was known and 
practised in the time of Moses ; and that some of the laws 
and the ground-work of the system must have come from 
him ; (although these critics differ as to the extent of this 
ground-work). They also agree that the Pentateuch is made 
up by a nameless multiplicity of compositions ; " here a little 
and there a little ;" " line upon line," after long intervals of 
time ; and that it was not completed until the latter part of 
the Jewish monarchy. This Gollectaneum, (I had almost 
said Ollapodrida), is everywhere dismembered, dissected, 
separated, and descriptively distinguished, in a measure by 
the niceties of style and diction. But here is another great 
principle which is summoned to the aid of the critical ana- 
lyzers, which is common to both, and heartily sanctioned by 
both, viz., that prophecy or prediction, in the strict sense of 
these words, is an impossibility, and therefore is out of the 
question. All the references, then, in the so-called prophetic 
parts of the Pentateuch, whether to nations, or events, or 
characteristics of either, must have been written post even- 
turn, i. e. after the nations arose, and after the events took 
place, etc. This is at least very simple ; it is also very effec- 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 58 

tual for the purposes of neological criticism. It makes the 
assignment of dates to the ancient scriptural writings com- 
paratively quite easy and obvious. 

It is out of question for me here separately to canvass 
the particular allegations of these critics. I can only make 
a few remarks of a general nature, and must then pass on. 

That the five books of the Pentateuch were not written 
in one continuous succession, like an epic poem, or a contin- 
uous piece of history, or an argumentative discussion, is suf- 
ficiently obvious to any one who reads with discrimination. 
To me the Pentateuch from the commencement of Moses' 
active public life onwards through the whole, wears the air 
of a (historic) journal, as well as a record of legislation 
which was engaged in as often as circumstances called for it. 
Everything is more or less minutely recorded, according to 
its relative importance at the time when it was written down. 
It looks exactly like the journal of a man, who was often in- 
terrupted in writing by the pressure of his other engage- 
ments. If Moses was actually the responsible leader of two 
and a half millions of people for forty years, through the 
Arabian desert, he most assuredly must have been a very 
busy man, and have had but little time for writing. His 
laws were made, from time to time, as circumstances requi- 
red, and as the people could bear them. Some of them were 
modified or changed during the journej". All this appears in 
his journal. It bears the marks of being a series of brief 
compositions, written in a manner independently of each 
other ; for they were doubtless written at very different 
times, and places, and some of them quite remotely from each 
other. Deuteronomy, which is set so low by some of the 
critics, and attributed to a foreign hand by most of the Ne- 
ologists, appears to my mind, as it did to that of Eichhorn 
and Herder, as the earnest outpourings and admonitions of a 
heart, which felt the deepest interest in the welfare of the 
Jewish nation, and which realized that it must soon bid fare- 
well to them. The repetition of laws is to mold them more 
into a popular shape, so as to be mere easily comprehended 



54 § 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 

and remembered. Instead of bearing upon its face, as is al- 
leged by some, evidences of anotber authorship than that of 
Moses, I must regard this book as being so deeply fraught 
with holy and patriotic feeling, as to convince any unpreju- 
diced reader, who is competent to judge of its style, that it 
cannot, with any tolerable degree of probability, be attribu- 
ted to any pretender to legislation, or to any mere imitator of 
the great legislator. Such a glow as runs through all this 
book, it is in vain to seek for in any artificial or supposititious 
composition. 

As to the book of Genesis, it of course must have been 
matter of immediate revelation to Moses, or else of tradition 
either oral or written. Now as Luke tells us, that when he 
was preparing to write his Gospel, he investigated all the 
things which it contains even up to their original sources, so 
it may have been, and probably was, with Moses. It was 
for him to judge, as the traditions were examined by him, what 
among them was true, and what was false. If we suppose him 
to have been under divine influence, (as I do suppose), then 
the difficulty as to his judging would surely not be very great. 
The accounts of former times, then, he has brought together. 
I have no hesitation in believing that he has combined differ- 
ent ones ; and occasionally, where the subject was one of deep 
interest, he extracted from two or more sources at the same 
time ; e. g. in his history of the flood ; of the creation of 
man and woman ; and so of other particulars. For nearly 
fifty years, all Germany has resounded with reports concern- 
ing this matter, which have been greatly diversified. The 
most general theory is, that tioo different writers are the main 
sources of the book, viz., the Elokist, i. e. the one who uses 
Elohim to designate the Godhead, in his narrations, and the 
Jehovist (proh pudor ! to form such a sacrilegious appellation), 
i. e. the one who employs Jehovah for the same purpose. 
Germany is full of books proclaiming the certainty and the 
importance of this discovery. After all, metes and bounds 
can be drawn with no certainty between these two sources, 
and evidently there are compositions in Genesis which be- 
long to neither, and which are of a mixed character. It 



§3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 55 

matters not to us who wrote these pieces or when they were 
written. They have passed, as I believe, through Moses' 
hands, and are authenticated by him. Nothing, moreover, 
can be more natural than the composition of such a book as 
Genesis, in order to constitute a kind of introduction to the 
remaining four books of tbe Pentateuch. 

The account of the creation cannot, indeed, be considered 
in the light of a historical composition of the ordinary cast ; 
for no man was a witness of the events which it records. It 
must, therefore, be regarded in the light of a composition 
that depended on divine teaching or illumination entirely. 
At least I look on it in that light. To call it a creation-song, 
with recent critics ; or to regard it as a mere poetic philoso- 
phem, or philosophical speculation on the origin of things 
in a poetic way ; I cannot. The sublime and awful matter 
and manner of the composition forbid me to attribute it to 
mere fanciful conceptions of the mind. 

In some such way would I explain the various phenomena 
of the compositions, which make up the Pentateuch. That 
a book of such claims as it puts forth, viz., as being a work 
of Moses the great lawgiver, should be composed at six dif- 
ferent periods, as Ewald supposes, or at three or four, as 
Lengerke maintains, and yet admitted each time, by the 
whole Jewish nation, by prophets, priests, and kings, as a 
genuine icork of Moses, requires much more credulity than 
the commonly received scheme of belief. Skepticism and 
credulity are, after all, more nearly allied than most persons 
are ready to suppose. That king of Prussia, who had Vol- 
taire at his elbow to aid and abet him in his attacks upon 
Christianity, and to foster his scorn of it, was the victim of 
superstitious deliraments such as are rarely found in the in- 
mates of a hamlet or a cottage. 

Still, the critics now before us are entirely free, as one 
who reads them must suppose, from any doubts as to their 
power to discriminate between all the various portions of the 
Pentateuch, and to separate them one from another. Each 
moves on, as though no impediment or obstacle could be 



56 § 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 

thrown in his way. Lengerke has perhaps even outstripped 
his compeer, in his march through the province of the destruc- 
tives. He tells us that the promise to Abraham and Jacob, 
that kings should arise from their posterity, could have been 
written only after kings arose in Israel ; p. xci. Among 
other things he says, that there is no satisfactory evidence that 
David composed one single Psalm, in the book which bears 
his name ; p. lxiv. And (which I think to be a rare discov- 
ery indeed) he has found out, that the 45th Psalm is an epi- 
thalamium on the marriage of Ahah and Jezebel I p. lxvii. 
The tyrant and apostate son of Omri and the Sidonian idol- 
atrous heathen devotee, Jezebel, hardly claimed for them- 
selves, as I wot, such ,an honor as this. 

Each of our critics, as I have said, appears confident that 
he is in the right ; although one makes out six redactions for 
the Pentateuch, and the other three. But if we inquire of 
some other critics, even of the Liberal School, about the mat- 
ter of style and tone in the Pentateuch, on which all the dis- 
cerptive process depends, they give us a very different ac- 
count of the matter. Eichhorn, no mean judge by the way 
in matters of taste or aesthetics, finds, as he avers (Einleit.), 
most palpably one and the same tone and tenor of diction, 
from the time when Moses comes upon the stage until he quits 
it. Deuteronomy he regards as the outpourings of a heart 
ready to burst with interest and solicitude for the Hebrew 
nation — such outpourings as could come from none but 
Moses. Herder is of the same opinion ; and his taste and 
discrimination in oriental matters have not often been sur- 
passed. Rosenmueller has avowed the same convictions, af- 
ter writing a commentary on the whole Pentateuch. Others 
might be named, to say nothing of the English and other Eu- 
ropean critics. What are we to say, then, to assumptions 
such as those of Ewald and Lengerke ? Are we, as a matter 
of course, to give them our assent ? And by what process 
shall we prove their judgment to be so much superior to that 
of Eichhorn and Herder, in such a matter ? 

If it were worth our while, it would be easy to show that 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OP THE CANON. 57 

men, even the best scholars, are liable to mistake in judg- 
ments of this nature, which depend on the style and tone of 
writings. Two or three notable instances, that are recent, 
may serve to illustrate and to defend this position. 

Of Sir "Walter Scott's talents and discrimination nothing 
needs to be said. Specially was he au fait in all matters 
pertaining to Scotch Ballads and Border Stories. Mr. J. H. 
Dixon, a literary antiquarian, has recently published some 
remains of Mr. R. Surtees, a poet of no mean rank ; and 
among the rest a morsel of five pages, entitled the Raid of 
Feather stonehaugh, a mere jeu oV esprit of the poet, in which 
he aimed to imitate the older ballad-makers. Sir Walter not 
only believed in the antiquity of the Raid, but quoted a whole 
verse from it in his Marmion (Cant. I. v. 13 seq.), and gave 
the poem at length in his Notes to this work, with a grave 
comment upon this work, pointing out its distinctive antiqua- 
rian traits. Surtees, of course, was convulsed with laughter, 
and thought it good pay for what Sir Walter had so often 
done to the public, by imposing on them in the way of pre- 
tending to quote old Ballads, and particularly that famous 
author Mr. Anonymous. 

A more recent affair of a like nature has just come before 
the public. Dr. Reinhold of Germany, being revolted by 
such claims as Strauss, Ewald, Bauer, Lengerke, and other 
Liberals make, to the power of discrimination in all cases be- 
tween what is ancient and modern, or earlier and later, in 
writing, in order to put these pretensions and boasts to the 
test, composed and published the story of the Amber Witch, 
as a " tale of olden time." It was of course furnished with 
the due apparatus, in the introduction, for carrying on the 
hoax with success. No sooner had the book been published, 
than the prevailing opinion appeared to pronounce it to be a 
genuine production of antiquity, and not a few criticised, and 
explained, and praised, all in the due and usual order. In 
particular, the Tubingen Reviewers — the compeers and 
friends of Strauss, pronounced their infallible sentence, 
grounded on their unerring skill in discriminating the char- 



58 § 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 

acter of any composition, in favour of the book as a genuine 
ancient chronicle. "When the matter had gone so far that there 
was no retreat, Dr. Reinhold comes out with an avowal, that 
the whole thing was a mere fiction, got up and carried through 
solely by himself. Angry and lacerated critics pretended not 
to believe him. The evidences of its antiquity, they averred, 
were sooner to be believed than his declarations. Recent 
report states, that Reinhold has actually been obliged to re- 
sort to the testimony of his neighbours and townsmen, who 
were cognizant of his undertaking in the time of it, in order 
to confront the assurance of the infallible critics of the New 
School. So much for this. What shall we say, then, in re- 
spect to the power of making out all the different authorships 
of a book more than 8000 years old, and written in an ori- 
ental tongue ? 

I have a graver matter still to relate. About 1824, & fac- 
simile of an inscription on a stone was sent from Malta to the 
French Academy, with a bilingual writing purporting to 
be Greek and Phenician, accompanied by some emblematic 
pictures or outlines of them, at the commencement and the 
close. The learned Raoul Rochette was then Keeper of the 
Cabinet of Antiquities, and professor of Archaeology at Pa- 
ris. He sent copies to different Literati in Europe, and ask- 
ed assistance to decipher the inscriptions. These were dated 
in the 85th Olympiad, i. e. some 436 years B. C. Raoul 
Rochette believed in their antiquity. Creutzer doubted ; 
Boeckh at Berlin also doubted. But Gesenius of Halle and 
Hamaker of Leyden, two of the best orientalists and anti- 
quarians in all Europe, not only sided with the French pro- 
fessor, but published comments on the inscriptions, which were 
submitted to the European public. In respect to the Greek 
part of the inscription, it was written (3ovGTQoq)7]d6v, in order 
to imitate the most ancient Greek ; still, there was no diffi- 
culty for an antiquarian in reading it. But the so-called 
Phenician part, was a matter of serious difficulty. Each an- 
tiquarian made out his own scheme of interpretation. Fi- 
nally, however, Raoul Rochette induced the celebrated Kopp, 



§ 3. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CANON. 59 

the author of the Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit, to under- 
take the deciphering of these inscriptions. This he did with 
the most complete and triumphant success, and exposed the 
folly of the claims made for them to all Europe, even to their 
entire satisfaction. His letter is in Vol. VI. of the Studiem 
und Kritiken ; and it has lulled the Maltese inscriptions of 
the 86th Olympiad into a sleep, from which they will never 
more wake. Not even the powerful voice of a Gesenius or 
of a Hamaker could summon them hack from the regions of 
Morpheus, or (whither perhaps they may have emigrated) 
from the banks of the Lethe in a darker domain. 

So much tor infallibility in these antique matters. How 
can Ewald and Lengerke expect from as implicit faith in 
their claims, while tacts like these are before 08? 

To sum up my critical cned respecting the Pentateuch in 
a few wonts; I believe that the last four hooks of the Penta- 
teuch contain a record or journal kept by Moses, during the 
period of forty years -pent in the Arabian waste ; that this 
journal is a mixed composition of laws and ordinances and 
history, written at periods and under circumstances so diverse, 
that parts of it not [infrequently wear the air of a different 
authorship ; and finally, that the book of ( tenesis is composed, 
in a good measure, of different traditions respecting preceding 

times, either oral OT written, all of which pass* d Under the 

revising eye and hand of Moses! The account of the crea- 
tion may have been derived from some of the patriarcl 
as Enoch, Noah, or Abraham, whose minds were enlightened 

in regard to this matter : or it may have come from Moses 
himself, enlightened in the same manner. Enough that all 
is now authentic. Why should I be called upon. then, to be- 
lieve in the discretive and discriminating powers of an Ewald 
or a Lengerke, when these powers are exercised, as they have 
plainly been, in separating what God ami Moses and the 
Saviour of the world have joined together ? 

Such was the commencement of the Hebrew Canon. The 
foundation of the ancient Dispensation was laid by it. How 
the Pentateuch was diffused and preserved among the Jews 



60 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

remains to be shown. When and in what manner the other 
parts of the Hebrew Scriptures took their rise, still remains 
for consideration. In order to place this whole subject in an 
adequate and appropriate light, it will be necessary to take a 
survey of the state and means of literature, and particularly 
of religious writing and instruction, from the time of Moses 
down to the period when the Canon was closed. When all 
this is before us, it will be easy to appreciate what is said, re- 
specting the composition and preservation of the sacred books ? 
and without some adequate and proper knowledge of these 
matters, no just and solid judgment can be formed in relation 
to the critical history of the Hebrew Scriptures. 



§ 4. State of Literature and means of Instruction among 
the Hebrews. 

In order to present anything satisfactory in relation to 
these topics, it will be necessary to take a distinct view of 
several matters, which stand intimately connected with them. 

I. It hardly needs to be said, that the art of printing was 
unknown at this period, not only among the Jews, but in all 
hither Asia and Europe. The Chinese, indeed, boast of 
knowing something of it for a considerable period before the 
Christian era. But this, as well as many other Chinese 
boasts, remains to be further examined. 

The diffusion of books, even sacred ones, among any peo- 
ple who can employ nothing but manuscripts all written out 
by hand, must everywhere and at all times be very limited. 
The expense of material on which writing could be perform- 
ed, was somewhat considerable ; yet this would not compare 
at all with the expense of hiring a copyist. It does not ap- 
pear certain, what the writing-material was, in the earlier 
times of the Hebrew commonwealth. The large tablet 
(V"nb) on which Isaiah (ch. viii.) is required to write, not 
improbably was a tablet of light wood smeared with wax. 
But in the time of Jeremiah, we find that the roll on which 
Baruch had written his communications, was cut in pieces 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 61 

with a knife, and burned in the fire by Jelioiakim ; Jer. 36: 
23. Possibly this was a linen roll, or it might more proba- 
bly be leather or parchment ? At a very early period the 
Egyptians began to write on linen and cotton-clotb, smeared 
over, after the writing, with some diaphanous substance so as 
to preserve it. They also wrote on what we may name 'pa- 
per, i. e. stuff manufactured from the bark of the papyrus. 
The skins of animals, tanned and made smooth, and adapted 
to the purpose of receiving impressions from ink of different 
kinds, were early employed among nations where writing was 
practised. One cannot well suppose the Jews to be ignorant 
of any of these materials, who had lived so long in Egypt ; 
and when once known, the use of them can hardly be sup- 
posed to be discontinued at any subsequent period. The 
best kind of parchment was, to be sure, only a late invention, 
i. e. in the time of Attalus the king of Pergamus. But tol- 
erably good writing material may be made from prepared 
cloth, or soft and smooth skins of animals that have a thin and 
delicate cuticle. The roll which Ezekiel saw (3: 9, 10), and 
the flying roll of Zechariah, disclose to us that either linen 
cloth or skins prepared, must have constituted the then usual 
material of writing. Psalm 40: 7 speaks of a TB& nk«>, a 
roll of the book, in which something was written that had re- 
spect to the Messiah ; see Heb. 10: 5 seq. The title of this 
Psalni ascribes it to David. In his time, then, books were 
written in such a manner, i. e. on such material, that they 
were rolled up. Cloth or prepared leather they must have 
been, unless indeed the product of the Egyptian papyrus 
may be supposed to have been transported to Palestine. To 
make this roll of a booh only a decree in the divine mind, 
because everything stands as it were recorded in that mind, 
(so Mr. ISTorton has explained it), is an application of the by- 
gone doctrine of accommodation, about as extravagant as 
anything among the German critics with whom he finds 
fault. 

A moment's consideration of the nature of the climate in 
Palestine, will serve to show how perishable the material of 
6 



62 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

books must have been, unless guarded with extraordinary 
care. The severe heat during one part of the year, and the 
extreme moisture during another part, must have both been 
unfavorable to the cloth and skin material on which books 
were written. It is easy to see, how the original autograph 
copies would soon disappear, in such circumstances, and spe- 
cially such volumes as were exposed to constant use and to 
the open atmosphere. The original Pentateuch might reach, 
perhaps, the time of Samuel, or of David ; but we can scarce- 
ly suppose it to have been extant in the time of Ezra. 

II. We can make no thorough comparison of the present 
state of the Christian world with that of the ancient He- 
brews, in respect to education and knowledge, without at 
once perceiving the almost unappreciable difference that ex- 
ists between them. Brought up as we are, in a land where 
from our very infancy the knowledge of letters is impressed 
upon us, and where it is a rare thing to find an individual 
who cannot read and write, and -rare even to find anyone 
who is not habitually a reader of some kind of book or pe- 
riodical, or at least of some weekly or daily journal, it is very 
difficult for us fully to realise the condition of a people, 
among whom books never circulated, or could circulate, to 
any great extent, and of whom only a few priests, and proph- 
ets, or some of the noblemen or of the rich, could even read 
a book. Yet such was the state of the ancient Hebrews. 

If there be any one thing which strikes us with astonish- 
ment in regard to the Mosaic legislation, it is, that no provi- 
sion is made by the great Jewish law-giver for the thorough 
education and enlightening of the Hebrew nation at large. 
When viewed in contrast with the present legislation of most 
Christian countries in respect to the subject of education, the 
Mosaic dispensation would indeed seem to be one of types 
and shadows, in comparison with that of the gospel. It was 
only once in seven years, viz. when the whole population of 
the country were required to assemble in Jerusalem at the 
feast of tabernacles, that the Law was to be read in the hear- 
ing of them all; Deut. 31: 10, 11. The usual period of 



§ 4 LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 63 

this feast was seven days ; and diligent must readers and 
hearers have been, if all the Law was read during that pe- 
riod. This is all the direct provision made by Moses, for the 
instruction of the people. Three times in a year, it is true, 
all the males were to appear before God in Jerusalem, viz. 
at the feast of unleavened bread or the passover, at the feast 
of weeks, and at the feast of tabernacles ; Deut. 16: 16. Ex. 
23: 14, 17. 34: 23. 1 Doubtless there were some selections 
from the Pentateuch read on these occasions ; but this is not 
expressly ordered by Moses ; nor could the reading have 
been very extensive, because of other duties to be performed. 

Besides these means of instruction, judyes and officers of 
the tribe of Levi, were to be appointed in all the Hebrew 
cities ; whose business it was to judge in cases of dispute be- 
tween man and man, to solve cases of conscience, and in- 
struct those who consulted them as to the mode of perform- 
ing ritual and ceremonial observances; Deut. 16: 18, comp. 
1 Chron. 23: 3, 4. Of this more will be said in the sequel, 
when we come to inquire what part the priests took in the in- 
struction of the people. 

The very statute of Moses, which orders all the popula- 
tion of the land to assemble once in seven years in order to 
hear the Law read, does in itself imply, that this was the 
only means provided generally for such a purpose. If each 
family possessed a copy of the Law, and could read it, of 

1 I cannot refrain from noticing here an important circumstance, ad- 
ded in the way of encouragement or assurance, in order to show the He- 
brews the practicability of complying -with the injunction to assemble 
thrice each year at Jerusalem. What I refer to follows immediately the 
injunction in Ex. 34: 23. to " appear thrice in the year before the Lord,'' 
and it runs thus : " Tor I will cast out the nations before thee, and en- 
large thy borders, neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt 
go up to appear before the Lord thrice in the year."' Mr. Norton and 
others who speak with undissembled horror of the command to extir- 
pate idolaters from the land of Pale-tine, probably may not have turned 
their thoughts to this necessary precaution for the safety of die Jewish 
people, when celebrating their national feasts during so many days of 
the year. The withdrawing of the great mass of the male population 
from their homes, must of course have left the countrv defenceless. 



64 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

what possible consequence would be all the trouble and ex- 
pense and risk of assembling at Jerusalem in order to hear 
it merely ? The defenceless state of the country, and the 
heavy expenses of travelling with one's whole family on 
these occasions, even from the remotest borders of the coun- 
try, shows that other more facile and more economical means 
of enlightening the people and of giving them full views of 
their religious and civil obligations, were no part of the Mo- 
saic institution. Had they been employed, the general as- 
sembling of the whole mass, so onerous and expensive, must 
have been superseded. 

We know indeed that in the times of Samuel, and of 
Elijah and Elisha, that there were something like schools of 
the prophets, in which young men were trained up for pro- 
phetic service. But the number of them could not have 
been very great. Omitting these, we hear or know nothing 
of schools for the education of the mass of the people. They 
seem never to have existed. Hence the mass could neither 
read nor write. Hence too the revolting fickleness and mu- 
tability of the Jews, in regard to the worship of the true 
God. A well informed population must have viewed with 
disgust the abominations of the heathen worship. But igno- 
rance is always prone to superstition, and is ready to believe 
anything and everything which superstition will inculcate. 
The morals of the heathen were of course low ; those of the 
Mosaic system were sound and stern, and as to some features 
perhaps even rigid. Heathen rites, we may suppose, were 
naturally revolting to most Jews, so far as bloody human sac- 
rifices were demanded. Yet even Moloch was, at times, wor- 
shipped by many of the Hebrews with zeal. But what attract- 
ed the ignorant and unthinking was, the loose rein that was 
held over the passions. Impurity was even a part of the heath- 
en religious rites. In the journey of the Hebrews toward 
Palestine, while under the guidance of Moses himself, the peo- 
ple joined themselves to Baal-peor, the god of the Moabites ; 
and all this, because they were allured to " commit whore- 
dom with the daughters of Moab ;" Num. 25: 1 seq. So 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 65 

down through the whole time of the Judges, and, with few 
exceptions, down to the Babylonish exile itself, the Jews 
were continually prone to turn aside from their more rigid 
and pure and elevated worship, to the rites and ordinances 
of the heathen. Nothing but the gross ignorance in which 
they lived, can adequately account for such a phenomenon. 

It is indeed true, that Moses commands Jewish parents to 
"teach his statutes diligently to their children* and to talk 
of them when they sit in the house, and when they walk by 
the way, and when they lie down, and when they rise up ;" 
Deut. 6: 6, 7. But the instruction is all oral. No refer- 
ence is made to letters or books. "What the parents could 
retain in memory from hearing the Law l-ead once in seven 
years, they were to inculcate upon their children. But how 
much the mass of the people ignorant of letters would re- 
tain and teach, was but too manifest in the subsequent igno- 
rance and proneness to idolatry in all ages of the Jewish 
Commonwealth, down to the time of the return from the 
Babylonish exile. 

Such is the remarkable difference between the effects of 
the Gospel-dispensation, and that of the ancient Law. The 
votaries of Bomish superstition would fain bring the mass of 
Christians back to the condition of the ancient Hebrews. 
With them it is at least a practical maxim, that ignorance is 
the mother of devotion ; but above all, that ignorance of the 
Scriptures is the mother of devotion. Hence the Bible it- 
self is not to be put into the hands of the common people. 
Religion, therefore, with them must practically mean, a rea- 
diness to submit to all which the Pope and the priesthood 
prescribe. But here even the times of Moses were far in ad- 
vance. All the people were required to hear the whole Law 
once in seven years ; and parents were also strictly enjoined 
to urge upon their children all the precepts which they could 
retain in memory. Moses, of course, did not leave the whole 
population to be managed only by the priests. 

I have only to subjoin under this head, that we must not 
judge of the policy or skill of Moses, in legislating for the 
6* 



66 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

Hebrews, by a comparison of tbe ancient Jews with our own 
population at the present day. The Hebrews as a nation 
were illiterate ; and they long continued to be so. A com- 
mand to set up schools among them, in the then state of 
things, and to furnish all their children with books, would at 
least have been deemed by them to be a practical impossibili- 
ty. We, who purchase elementary books enough at the 
price of from two-pence up to fifty, can scarcely feel what a 
burden the general provision of books for all the children, 
and for grown-up readers, would have been in the Mosaic age. 
It is one of the things that the great legislator felt himself 
obliged to leave untouched, on account of the circumstances 
of the Hebrews, and of the times in which he lived. Book- 
making or reading, and the possession of books, could at 
that time belong only to a few. 

HI. Let us now look at this subject in another point of 
light. I refer to the subject of religions instruction. 

"We who have enjoyed the privileges of the Christian Sab- 
bath and of the sanctuary, are but ill-prepared for the due es- 
timation of the ancient laws of Moses, in respect to these mat- 
ters. The Jewish people were forbidden, on the penalty of 
excision, to kindle a fire in their dwellings on the Sabbath ; 
Ex. 35: 8. They were even prohibited froni leaving their 
habitations on that day (Ex. 16: 29) ; although the spirit of 
this precept would not seem to extend to leaving their dwell- 
ings for the purpose of religious worship. But all idea of reli- 
gious social instruction on the Sabbath is entirely lacking here, 
and is to be excluded. We shall soon see that there was no 
provision for social worship among the Hebrews on the Sab- 
bath, and no order of men whose business it was regularly to 
superintend their habitual religious instruction. Parents are 
the only persons required by Moses to perform this office ; and 
how well it would be performed by those who could neither 
read nor write, and had no books, it is not difficult to perceive. 
Nothing is plainer, than that the very arrangement of the 
tabernacle, its ritual, its priesthood, (and so in respect to the 
temple), presupposes and takes for granted that there is only 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 67 

one lawfully constituted place of public ritual worship. Three 
times in each year are all the males among the Hebrews to 
repair to the tabernacle or temple, and spend, on two of these 
occasions, a week each time (at the Passover and also at the 
Feast of tabernacles), and at least one day as sacred time at 
the feast of weeks or Pentecost. The reason why no more 
time was demanded on this last occasion, which occurred just 
seven weeks after the feast of the passover, is obvious. It 
was the beginning of harvest time, and the absence for even 
a few days of the great mass of the population from their 
homes, would occasion the loss of their main sustenance. 

The sacrifices appropriate to these occasions could be offer- 
ed " only in the place which the Lord Jehovah had chosen." 
Specially was this true of the passover-lamb. It must be 
killed and dressed in the outer court of the tabernacle or 
temple, while its blood was carried within, and sprinkled up- 
on the altar. Of course there could have been no other law- 
ful places of worship, i. e. of ritual worship, which would 
have rivalled the tabernacle or temple. 

But still, may there not have been houses built in at least 
the larger towns for public, social, devotional worship ? May 
not the Hebrews from Joshua down to the Babylonish exile, 
have had their synagogues, i. e. places of social religious meet- 
ing, in order to read and expound the Scriptures, to sing 
hymns, to communicate instruction, and to give utterance to 
exhortations ? Nothing is easier, I answer, than for us, 
brought up as we have been, to suppose this. Indeed it is 
even difficult for us to suppose the contrary. 

We can scarcely credit it, that Moses should have over- 
looked or failed to make an arrangement so obviously impor- 
tant and useful. But still, when we make the most strict 
and thorough scrutiny of the Hebrew Scriptures, both in the 
history which they contain and in the prophecies, we cannot 
find a trace of any such thing as public social worship, either 
on the Sabbath or on any other day of the week, from the 
time of Moses down to that of Ezra. There is not a word 
in all the Pentateuch of command to the Hebrews to keep the 



68 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

Sabbath, by attendance on public worship. There is no inti- 
mation of even voluntary associations of individuals in any 
part of Palestine, to hold any stated public and social wor- 
ship, or to procure religious instruction for such occasions. 

In the book of Judges, (the brief history of a period of 
about 300 years), there is little else but a record of Jewish 
propensities to idolatry, and of the chastisement which en- 
sued, upon the indulgence of these propensities. There is, 
however, one notable woman, Deborah, who is called a 
prophetess, whose history is given ; but apparently more on 
account of her political than her religious achievements ; 
Judg. iv. seq. She, as it would seem, was the civil head of 
the Hebrew nation, during a period of some length. Her 
triumphal song on account of the victory achieved over Sis- 
era and his army, is on record, Judg. v. ; but we hear noth- 
ing of any religious instruction that she gave. After this 
period, when the Midianites invaded Palestine, overran it, 
and greatly oppressed the Hebrews for seven years, we are 
told of & prophet, whose name is not given (Judg. 7: 8 — 10), 
who was sent to administer reproof to his countrymen. This 
is all respecting religious instruction, which the history of 
300 years presents. Can we suppose synagogues to have 
been extant, and regular worship to have been carried on 
during all this time ? Nothing is more unlikely, or more 
foreign to the demeanor of the Jewish nation, at that period. 
Scarcely did they rise up and free themselves from one 
neighboring heathen nation, who had been commissioned to 
chastise them for their idolatry, before they relapsed again 
into the commission of the same crime, and again were oblig- 
ed to undergo the like punishment. Nothing can, to all ap- 
pearance, be more true than the last verse of the book of 
Judges, in reference to those times : " In those days there 
was no king in Israel ; every man did that which was right 
in his own eyes." 

This verse, moreover, seems to show that the book of 
Judges must itself have been written after kings arose in Is- 
rael. Whether as the Talmudists suppose, it was written by 



§ 4 LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 69 

Samuel, or whether more probably by some other and later 
personage, we cannot now stop to inquire. But if the whole 
book, as it now is, was always the same from its origin, it 
might seem to have been written at quite a late period of the 
Jewish kings ; for chap. 18 : 30 mentions " the captivity of 
the land," i. e. seemingly of the ten tribes, which was at the 
commencement of Hezekiah's reign. But I do not, with De 
Wette, regard this as decisive of the age of the whole book, 
any more than I look upon the late protracted account of the 
dukes of Edom (Gen. xxxvi), or the account of the death 
of Moses (Deut. xxxiv), as decisive of the age of the Pen- 
tateuch in general. Some of the documents (for several are 
plainly combined in the book of Judges), beyond reasonable 
doubt are of the more ancient stamp, and might have been 
written soon after the events which they describe had taken 
place. 

In respect to the book of Joshua, which also is made up of 
several ancient documents, this could not well have been 
completed until the reign of David, inasmuch as we have re- 
peated references to Jerusalem in it (Josh. 10: 1. 15: 63. 18: 
28), which was, before the time of David, called Jehus 
(Judg. 19: 11), and was subdued by David and made his 
capital ; 2 Sam. 5: 1 — 9. But the registers of the division 
of the country among the twelve tribes of Israel, and some 
other matters in the book, it is quite probable are of a date 
contemporaneous with that of the conquest by Joshua. 

Thus it seems to be plain, that for a period of about three 
centuries after the death of Moses (B. C. 1451), there could 
have been no other Scriptures extant among the Jews, than 
the Pentateuch, probably some parts of the book of Joshua, 
and some portion, it may be, of the book of Judges. These 
Scriptures, instead of being in the hands of the great mass of 
the people, or of being read every Sabbath, could have been 
possessed by very few even among the priests and rulers. 
Indeed it is difficult to find any recognition at all of priests, 
during the period covered by the book of Judges. Mention 
is made, Judges 20: 28, of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar 



70 § 4. LITERATURE OP THE HEBREWS. 

and grandson of Aaron, at the time when the Benjamites 
were nearly destroyed by the other tribes. But after this we 
hear no more of priests or prophets, (with the exceptions 
above noted as to the latter), until the time of Eli and Sam- 
uel. It does not follow, indeed, that there were no persons 
of these respective orders among the Hebrews. But that 
they performed no conspicuous part, that they were not nu- 
merous or active enough to have much influence on the na- 
tion at large, seems to be nearly certain from the manner and 
tenor of the history in the two books before us. 

In such a state of things, how was the Pentateuch preser- 
ved ? By whom was it watched over and guarded, and how 
much was it diffused among the Hebrews ? These questions 
very naturally arise ; but we cannot stop to answer them now, 
without interrupting the history of religious instruction among 
the Hebrews. We shall revert to these inquiries as soon as 
the course of our discussion will permit. 

Let us pursue the inquiry respecting social synagogue wor- 
ship from the era of Samuel down to the Babylonish exile. 

Not one word in regard to this subject can I find, in the 
histories comprised in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chro- 
nicles, or in the Psalms, Proverbs, or works of the prophets 
who lived during this period. When Jeremiah pours forth 
his pathetic Lamentations over the fallen city and country of 
the Hebrews, he describes the ruins of the temple, the metro- 
polis, the strong holds, and the villages ; he weeps over the 
multitudes of the slain, the famishing, and the exiled; but 
not a word respecting the destruction of any synagogues of 
the land, or places of public social worship. The commina- 
tions of the prophets in regard to judgments about to be in- 
flicted, all have respect to the objects first mentioned and not 
to synagogues. It is affirmed of no invading enemy, whether 
Babylonian or other foe, that he assaulted or destroyed any 
such buildings or places of worship. 

The great public fasts, on extraordinary occasions of dis- 
tress and danger, are always proclaimed and spoken of as cel- 
ebrated in Jerusalem. Thus Joel, in a time of famine threat- 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 71 

ened by the incursion of locusts, proclaims a fast in Zion, and 
the summoning of the solemn assembly there ; Joel 2: 15 seq. 
When several enemies had combined, and were on their 
march to invade Judea, the pious Jehoshaphat proclaimed 
and celebrated a fast of the whole nation at Jerusalem ; 2 
Chron. 20: 3 seq. When Jehoiakim, stricken with terror at 
the approach of Nebuchadnezzar's army, proclaimed a fast to 
all the realm, this fast was to be held at Jerusalem ; Jer. 36: 
9. Now as the Law of Moses had made no prescriptions in 
regard to any temple-ritual for such fasts on extraordinary 
occasions, what necessity could there be of assembling at Je- 
rusalem for services merely devotional, in case there were 
synagogues dispersed through all the land ? The nature of 
the arrangement, on the very face of it, imports that there 
were no such places of public and social worship, where the 
people were accustomed to perform their devotions. And 
this is plainly confirmed by the fact, that when Jehoshaphat 
sent princes and Levites through all Judea, in order to give 
the people religious instruction, they carried a copy of the 
Law with them, which they obtained at Jerusalem, in order 
to aid and confirm their instructions ; 2 Chron. 17: 7 seq. 
This was surely a needless precaution in case there were syn- 
agogues in all parts of the land, and of course copies of the 
Law in them. 

I am aware that it has been alleged by some advocates of 
the early existence of synagogues, that there is a plain infer- 
ence to them in Ps. 74: 8, which contains a lamentation over 
the wasting of Judea — probably its desolation by the Baby- 
lonish army. Of the enemy the Psalmist says : " They have 
burned up all the synagogues of God in the land." So runs 
our English version. The original Hebrew runs thus : 
■pxa bx-^'-s-bs . The word nsi-o , here rendered taberna- 
cles, means, first of all & fixed appointed time or season ; then, 
very naturally, the assembling or convention of men at such 
appointed seasons ; then, thirdly, (like our word church which 
means assembly, and then the place of assembling), it stands 
for temple or place of assembling. So Lam. 2: 6, " [The 



72 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

Lord] hath destroyed hi'J'o , his temple." But in Ps. 74: 8, 
the plural number of this word is employed, btrinsto . On 
this account Gesenius says, in his lexicon : " It is difficult to 
say what this means ;" and on the whole he thinks it may 
refer to the high places at Kama, Bethel, Gilgal, etc. Rosen- 
mueller cuts the knot, which he cannot untie. He says, that 
the Psalm was doubtless composed in the time of the Macca- 
bees, and refers to the destruction of synagogues by Antio- 
chus. More recent criticism seems to have laid aside the 
idea of Maccabaean psalms, and we are thrown again upon 
the difficulty which the case appears to present. But it seems 
to me much less formidable than it did to Vitringa, or to the 
critics just named. Let us compare the synonymous word 
■)3ii?a , dwelling place, temple, (synonymous with ISta when 
this means temple), and see what the usage of the Hebrew is. 
In Ps. 46: 5. 132: 5, the word (")!3ti?») is in the plural num- 
ber, with the sense of the singular ; in Ps. 74: 7. Ex. 25: 9. 
Ezek. 37: 27, the same word with the same meaning is em- 
ployed in the singular number. What difficulty then in in- 
terpreting ^sri'ns'ia after the analogy of ^SiBE , in cases where 
both words have the same sense ? The simple truth of the 
matter seems to be, that the use of the singular or plural, as 
to a considerable circle of words, was a matter left to the 
choice of the writer. Thus he might say ^x , or l-tt^X , or 
tW^x ; "oHa or rm ; and so in the New Testament odpfia- 
rov and adnata, ovQavog and ovquvoi, dvarolij and dvmo- 
Xai, and the like in many other cases. Substantially there 
is no difference of meaning between the singular and plural 
forms, where such a usage prevails. The plural may indeed, 
almost at any time, be used instead of the singular, whenever 
a writer conceives of an object as composite, i. e. as consist- 
ing of various parts, and he has reference to this circumstance 
in the language which he employs ; or, when he means to de- 
signate intensity. When simple unity is designated, the sin- 
gular number only is of course employed. Finally, inasmuch 
as the temple, With all its courts, was a large mass of build- 
ings, the plural of "iste might very appropriately be employ- 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 73 

ed to designate it, as thus conceived of. How much more 
easy and simple this philological explanation is, than those of 
the critics just named, every one may easily pei'ceive. If it 
be said that ^3 stands in the way of this and requires the real 
plural, my reply would be, that the plural form of the noun 
may well admit ^3 , while the sense of the whole is not sub- 
stantially affected by it. 

If there be any passage besides this in the Old Testament 
which has even a seeming reference to synagogues properly 
so called, it has escaped my notice. I am aware, indeed, that 
some have supposed that certain other passages might refer to 
them ; but the probability that they do so refer, is so small, 
that I do not deem it proper to occupy my own or the read- 
er's time with the consideration of them. 

In whatever way then the Law of Moses, or any other 
ancient books of the Jewish canon were preserved, before the 
Babylonish exile, it could not have been by the aid of syna- 
gogues. When these arose ; and what was done in them 
with reference to the Jewish Scriptures ; are questions that 
must be touched upon in the sequel. 

One other circumstance of a seemingly extraordinary nature 
in regard to the Law of Moses, deserves some special attention. 
In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah (about 624 B. C.) 
the high priest Hilkiah, on occasion of making a thorough 
repair and expurgation of the temple, " found the book of the 
Law of the Lord by Moses ;" 2 Chron. 34: 14 seq. 2 King? 
22: 8 seq. This he announced immediately to the king's 
scribe, who took the book and read it before the king. The 
surprise and agitation which this occurrence occasioned in all 
quarters, are represented as being very great. Josiah imme- 
diately convoked the whole realm, and in person read the 
book of the Law to them, and exacted from them a promise 
to obey it. What is to be deduced from a circumstance so 
peculiar and extraordinary as this ? 

We know what Mr. Norton has deduced from this narra- 
tion. On p. 87 he says : "■ The story of its being acciden- 
tally found in the Temple, may be thought to have been 



74 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

•what was considered a justifiable artifice, to account for the 
appearance of a book hitherto unknown." Not a few of the 
German critics have, in like manner, traced the origin of the 
Pentateuch to the transaction in question. If the Pentateuch 
was before in existence, it was impossible, they allege, that 
Josiah and the high priest Hilkiah should have been ignorant 
of it or destitute of it. 

First of all, then, as to the probability of such a forgery 
on this occasion. What kind of persons were concerned in 
it ? Josiah was the most pious king that ever sat upon the 
throne of Judah, from the time of David down to the captivity. 
He entered upon his office at the age of only eight years, and 
before he had arrived at his eighteenth year, he had cut off 
and destroyed all the idols of the land, with their temples, 
groves and monuments of every kind, and in the way of dis- 
grace he had burned the bones of idolatrous priests upon the 
altars where they had ministered. Not only so in Judea, but 
he went beyond his own specific boundaries, and destroyed all 
the insignia of idolatry to be found in the land of Israel ; 2 
Chron. 24: 3 — 7. Having accomplished this work, he im- 
mediately set about repairing the ruins of the temple, which 
had been occasioned by the fifty-seven years of idolatry under 
his predecessors. Most zealously did he engage in this work ; 
in which he was seconded by the pious and distinguished 
high priest Hilkiah, who was probably the father of the pro- 
phet Jeremiah. In the prosecution of these repairs, the copy 
of the Law in question was found. That there was no con- 
cert between the high priest and the pious Josiah, to introduce 
a new system of Law among the Jews, is quite clear. When 
the scribe or secretary of state, Shaphan, read the Law to that 
king, the latter rent his clothes in token of grief and distress ; 
unquestionably because of the heavy denunciations in that 
Law against idolatry and such sins as were common among 
his people. Immediately he sent to inquire of a prophetess, 
what was to be done to propitiate the anger of the Lord, which 
had been kindled because of the breaches of his Law that had 
so long taken place. The answer returned was, that * God 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 75 

would visit upon Jerusalem all the evil that had been done 
there, but would be propitious to him, ou account of his hu- 
mility and penitence.' Immediately Josiah assembled all Is- 
rael ; read to them in person all the words of the Law ; sol- 
emnly engaged to obey its precepts with all his heart ; and 
obliged all the people to enter into the same covenant ; 2 
Cbron. 34: 20 — 32. He extended the reformation to Israel 
also ; and all his days he departed not from following the 
Lord, the God of his fathers ; 2 Chron. 34: 33. This more- 
over was the king, who renewed the passover-rites which 
had fallen into desuetude, and kept such a passover " as had 
not been kept from the days of Samuel the prophet, nor by 
any of the kings of Israel ;" 2 Chron. 35: 18. And as to 
Hilkiah, the record of his life and actions is brief, but full of 
significance. To him was committed all monies for repairing 
the bouse of the Lord, even without being required to ac- 
count for them. The work of repairing was carried ou with 
great zeal and complete success, under the same high-priest. 

Were these men, now, and others their associates who 
were evidently of the like character, persons who would un- 
dertake to commit a forgery hi the name of Moses, and to 
palm it off as the genuine production of that great lawgiver 
upon the whole Jewish people ? Then, moreover, were the 
people so stupid and tame, as to receive such a book as com- 
ing from the hand of Moses, and to swear fealty to all its sta- 
tutes and ordinances accordingly? Did they not know 
whether such a book had been received or known by their an- 
cestors, not to speak of themselves aforetime ? In short, 
whatever may be the position in which such a forgery may 
be placed, or argued for, it is a manifest and utter improba- 
bility. It scarcely deserves a serious notice. Indeed, such 
a thing was all but impossible. 

But then all difficulties are not removed, by removing this 
obstacle from our path. How could the pious Josiah, and 
above all the high priest Hilkiah, have lived and acted so long 
(some eighteen years), without possessing any copy of the 
Law of Moses ? 



76 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

That all the ordinary routine of temple-rites was well 
known and familiar to the priests who ministered at the 
altar, must be quite certain. To suppose these to have 
been regularly performed by virtue of traditional knowledge, 
is doing no violence to probability. It is only what has hap- 
pened in all ages and in many countries ; I mean not the 
performance of the same identical rites, but of others of the 
like nature, as it respected the religion of the heathen. It is 
true, that nearly the time of two generations preceding the 
reign of Josiah had passed away, while idolatry in its gross- 
est forms had pervaded the land under Manasseh and Anion, 
whose reigns lasted fifty-seven years. Manasseh not only 
" walked in the ways of Ahab," but he built altars and set up 
carved images for his idols in the very temple of the true 
God ; he offered up his own children to Moloch, and " did 
even more wickedly than the Amorites themselves had done." 
Besides this, " he shed much innocent blood in Jerusalem from 
one end to the other." To him, Jewish tradition (with much 
probability) attributes the massacre of Isaiah. He was suc- 
ceeded by Amon, who trode in his steps, and withal was so 
tyrannical, that his own courtiers formed a conspiracy against 
him, and put him to death when he had reigned only two 
years. 

In this history, now, as it seems plain to me, lies the so- 
lution of the problem, arising from the fact that a copy of the 
Law of Moses was found, after so long a time, by Hilkiah. 
Nearly sixty years of undisguised and most thorough-going 
idolatry, carried out even to the most bitter and bloody per- 
secution of the true worshippers of God, had obliterated near- 
ly every trace or monument of proper religious worship. The 
number of copies of the Pentateuch had probably never been 
great, at any one time, among the Hebrews. Those more- 
over which had been in existence, were written upon perish- 
able materials. Such devoted idolatry as that of Manasseh, 
it is probable, would not permit any copy of the Pentateuch 
to remain safe, which could be destroyed. Antiochus Epi- 
phanes, when he wished to extirpate the Jewish worship and 



§ 4. LITERATURE OP THE HEBREWS. 77 

introduce the rites of the heathen into Judea, ordered all the 
copies of the Law to be burned. It was an obvious measure 
for Manasseh, in order to carry through his designs. The 
story of finding the copy of the Law in the temple, which 
created so great a sensation in the court and among the peo- 
ple, is a good voucher for the fact, that Manasseh aimed at 
building heathenism upon the ruins of Mosaism and all its 
monuments, so far as it lay within his power. In some se- 
cret recess of the temple, it is altogether probable, had some 
pious priest hidden the copy of the Law found by Hilkiah, 
in order to prevent its destruction by Manasseh. That priest 
had probably died, or been martyred, during Manasseh' s im- 
pious reign, and the secret died with him, as to the place where 
the Law was deposited. In making extensive repairs of the 
temple, the secreted volume was discovered, to the astonish- 
ment and great joy of the king, the high priest, and the mass 
of the Jewish people, who seem to have been thoroughly dis- 
gusted with the reigns of Manasseh and Amon. 

If any one should regard it as quite improbable, that the 
copies of the Law could be reduced to a single one at this 
period, let him read the religious history of France during the 
reign of terror and of atheism. In less than an eighth part 
of the time in which idolatry prevailed under Manasseh and 
Amon, France had succeeded so entirely in obliterating all 
traces of the Scriptures, in and about Paris, numerous as 
Bibles were in that city at a period preceding the reign of 
terror, that for many weeks the Committee of the Bible 
Society could not find a single copy from which they might 
print a new edition. How much easier to produce a like 
effect in the time of Manasseh, when the copies of the Scrip- 
tures were so very few, and when almost every individual 
who possessed them, must be publicly known as the pos- 



it is true, indeed, that, according to the book of Chroni- 
cles (chap, xxxiii.), Manasseh was taken captive and car- 
ried to Babylon in chains, and after a while, being released, 
he returned to his kingdom penitent and humbled, and en- 

7* 



78 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

deavoured to repair the mischief he had done to the true re- 
ligion, by building up the altars of the Lord, and removing 
and destroying the images of false gods. Of all this, it is true, 
the book of Kings says nothing ; but still, the history is not 
the less credible on this account. Even tbe book of Chron- 
icles, however, does not give us any data by which we can 
estimate with certainty at what time in the reign of Manas- 
seh his exile took place. But the probability seems to be, 
that it was in the latter part of his very long reign (55 years), 
and that he had not then either the time or the means neces- 
sary to repair the mischief he had done. He could not re- 
store the copies of the Law which had been destroyed, if it 
was a matter of fact that he had destroyed them ; and it is 
altogether probable that he knew nothing of the fact or cir- 
cumstance, that the Pentateuch roll had been secreted in some 
part of the temple. Then his son, Amon, walked in the 
wandering steps of his father, and matters remained as they 
were until Josiah came to occupy the throne. Mere child as 
the latter was, he appears to have been deeply imbued with 
the spirit of piety, and to have commenced the work of re- 
formation as soon as his government was fairly established. 
The sequel of his history has already been presented to view. 
On the whole, strange as the finding of a copy of the Law 
of Moses after an eighteen years' reign of Josiah appears at 
first view to be, and much as has been made of it by interested 
critics against the antiquity of the Pentateuch, it turns out, 
upon more careful examination, to be nothing incredible, nor 
even very strange. But thus much at least may be gathered 
from it which is appropriate to our present purpose, viz., that 
there were at that time no synagogues in the land which 
were depositaries of the Law of Moses, and that few per- 
sons indeed, in a time of general idolatry and heathenism, 
possessed copies of the Pentateuch. We cannot conclude, 
for certainty, that no copy was extant in Judea at that time, 
except the hidden one in the temple. There were pious men, 
beyond all reasonable doubt, among the idolatrous mass of 
the people ; and some of these might have a copy of the 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 79 

Law. When Elijah, in the time of Ahab and Jezebel, com- 
plained to God, that he alone of all his true worshippers was 
left in the land of Israel, he was told by him who is the 
searcher of hearts, that 7000 were yet left, who had not 
bowed the knee to Baal. And so it might be, at least in 
some measure, under the reign of Manasseh and Amon. 
But still, the fact that Josiah reigned eighteen years before the 
book of the Law was found, seems to import, that no other 
copy of this book was then procurable in his dominions. 

The fact then, that before the Babylonish exile thei'e were 
no synagogues, and no public, social, devotional worship, lies 
upon the very face of the whole Jewish history. An ex- 
traordinary fact, I am ready to confess, it seems to us to be, 
so diiferent is it from a state in which a Christian education 
and weekly devotional worship are general, and are regarded 
as indispensable. On what ground the great Jewish legisla- 
tor omitted to make provision for the general education of the 
Jewish people, and above all for their religious education and 
for their social devotional worship, we do not know. But at 
all events, such a matter goes fully to illustrate the truth of 
what the apostle says, when he declares that " the Law was 
the shadow of good things to come, and not the very image 
of those things ;" Heb. 10: 1. It seems also to illustrate the 
declarations, that " the Law made nothing perfect," (Heb. 7: 
19), and that " the first covenant was not faultless" (Heb. 8: 
7, 8) ; yea, in view of these matters, one may even venture 
to say, with Paul, that the Jews, who had only a public ritual 
with all its external pomp and show instead of a religious 
education and stated, social, devotional worship and instruc- 
tion, " were under bondage to the elements of the world ;" 
Gal. 4: 3. Or one may express the feelings which sponta- 
neously arise in his bosom, after such a survey of the reli- 
gious state of the ancient Hebrews, by saying with Paul : 
" Even that which was made glorious, had no glory in this 
respect, by reason of the glory [of the gospel] which excel- 
led ;" 2 Cor. 3: 10. 

That the Jews had no regular places of public and social wor- 



80 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

ship, and no religious services appropriate to these, while in 
a state of exile and servitude in Babylonia, need not be shown. 
" How could they sing the Lord's song in a foreign land?" 
No ; " by the rivers of Babylon they sat down and wept ; 
they hanged their harps upon the willows ;" Ps. cxxxvii. 

One might naturally expect an altered state of things, 
after the Hebrews had returned from a seventy years' exile. 
The better portion of the people would naturally be the por- 
tion who went back to their native land. Some time (about 
seventy years) after permission to return and rebuild the 
temple, Ezra and Nehemiah appeared as religious and polit- 
ical reformers among the Jews living in and around their 
metropolis. The services of these distinguished men were 
great and important. Indeed, I think we can hardly look 
upon Ezra in any other light, than as a kind of second Moses 
among his countrymen. 

Yet in all the accounts of what these two reformers did, 
there is nothing which expressly recognizes the institution of 
synagogues. Still, the public reading and exposition of the 
Law, so circumstantially related in Neh. 8: 1 seq., might 
very naturally lead the people and their governors to see and 
feel the importance of providing the means for employing the 
like method of instruction — means that would ensure its being 
often and statedly given. But of this, express mention is 
not made in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah ; and after 
these, we have no Jewish historical writings on which we 
can rely, until near the time of the Maccabees, about 170 — 
160 B. C. Nor does even the first book of the Maccabees, 
(one of the oldest and most credible of all the apocryphal 
books), say a word of synagogues. But it says of Antiochus 
Epiphanes, that he burned up ta fiifih'a tov vd\iov, and also 
intimates that copies of the Law, in the hands of individuals, 
were not unfrequent ; 1 Maccabees 1: 56, 57. This imports 
a very different state of things from that which existed, as 
we have seen, in the time of Josiah. 

The Jews themselves have nothing more than mere floating 
traditions, about the origin and introduction of synagogues. 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 81 

In 1 Mace. 3: 45, 46, mention is made of the Jews, after the 
sanctuary was laid waste, as assembling for prayer at Masse- 
pha (Mizpeh), because it was formerly a ronog nQoaevpid, 
i. e. a place for prayer. But this merely refers to the occa- 
sional worship at Mizpeh, in the time of Samuel, and after- 
Avards ; 1 Sam. 7: 5 seq. In the eighth chapter of Nehe- 
miah we have a history of the reading and explanation of the 
Law, which might well serve as a model for synagogue wor- 
ship ; but still nothing is said of the institution of synagogues. 
It is only the Jews of a late period, who refer to Ezra the in- 
stitution and modelling of synagogue worship. So does Mai- 
monides fully and without scruple ; but yet he supports him- 
self merely by appealing to tradition ; see in Vitr. De Vet. 
Synag. p. 414 seq. Josephus speaks repeatedly of syna- 
gogues, in the time of Claudius ; e. g. in Antiq. Jud. XIX. c. 
5. c. 6. Bell. Jud. VII. c. 21, edit. Colon. Philo speaks of 
synagogues beyond the Tiber, at Alexandria, and in other 
large cities ; De Legat. ad Caium. Of the fact that these 
were common and numerous, there is no doubt ; for the New 
Testament is full of references to synagogues, both in and 
out of Palestine. But all this does not give us anything to 
depend on, as to the first origin of synagogues. This is lost 
in antiquity. !No Jewish author has given us any express 
and credible history respecting this point. 

The Rabbinic tradition about the Parashoth, or sabbatical 
lections of the Law, viz. about ceasing to read these in the 
time of persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, and putting the 
Haphtaroth or prophetical lections in their stead, seems not 
improbable, at first view ; and if this was matter of fact, then 
synagogues would seem to have been in existence in the time 
of Antiochus ; for the Parashoth and Haphtaroth are adapted 
to synagogue-worship, and not to the ritual of the temple. 

We are left then to conjecture as to what time after the 
return from the Babylonish exile, the public and social wor- 
ship of the synagogues commenced. That it began soon af- 
ter the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, if not in their day, would 
seem to be indicated by the declaration of the apostle James 



82 §4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

(Acts 15: 21), that " Moses of old time (ix yevsav doxai'm') 
hath in every city (xara TtoXiv) them that preach him, being 
read in the synagogues every sabbath day ;" comp. Acts 13: 
15, 27. I will not say that such a phrase as ix yeveav uoxaiav 
might not be employed in reference to a custom which origi- 
nated even after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, i.e. B. C. 
170. But such is not the natural import of the phrase in 
question, in the mouth of a Jew. One can hardly satisfy him- 
self with a period much short, to say the least, of that in 
which Ezra, Nehemiah, or Malachi lived. The nature of 
the case appears very much to favor this more extended lati- 
tude of meaning. From the time of Joshua down to that of 
the Babylonish exile, the Jews had been ever prone to fall 
into idolatry, and to practise all the rites of the neighboring 
nations. What could be plainer, than that the want of an 
adequate religious education was one of the principal causes 
of their defections ? Men of such learning and skill as Ezra, 
could not help discerning this. What more rational and pro- 
bable, than to suppose that he and Nehemiah concerted and 
carried into execution some plan for the general instruction 
of the Jewish people, specially as to the nature of their reli- 
gious duties ? 

I am aware that we should examine with caution the Rab- 
binic stories respecting Ezra and his colleagues, who are said 
to be the members of what is called the Great Synagogue. 
But while I would lend no willing ear to the rrratt or roman- 
tic conceits of the Jewish doctors, I cannot persuade myself, 
as many of the recent Liberalists in criticism have done, 
that there is no proper historical basis on which we may re- 
pose confidence, in respect to the existence or achievements 
of the Great Synagogue. All Rabbinic antiquity takes for 
granted, that in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, there was a 
select body of men in Judea, who were named the Great 
Synagogue, and who had much to do with arranging the Jew- 
ish Scriptures, making provision for their circulation, furnish- 
ing the best text to be had, and in a word, performing the 
part which was afterwards performed by the well-known Jew- 



§ 4 LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 83 

ish Sanhedrim. Rau (De Synagoga Magna), and Aurivil- 
lius of Upsala (Diss. Sac, edit. J. D. Michaelis, p. 139 seq.), 
have endeavoured to undermine the whole of this tradition, 
and to show that it is unworthy of credit. But after all, noth- 
ing but the conceits which the Rabbins have connected with 
the tradition, seem to demand rejection. If these were a good 
reason for rejecting the tradition itself, then many, or rather 
most of the narrations in the Old Testament Scriptures must 
be rejected in the like manner ; for what is there to which 
the Rabbins have not attached some fantasies not unfrequent- 
ly bordering upon the ridiculous ? 

On the other hand ; nothing can be more probable, than 
that two such patriots and men of ardent piety and sound un- 
derstanding and great zeal, as Ezra and Nehemiah, would call 
into council and active cooperation some of the wisest and best 
and most influential men among their Hebrew contempora- 
ries and countrymen ? The Jews have ever and always be- 
lieved this, so far as we know. I do not aver, that Josephus 
has expressly said anything of the Great Synagogue ; and 
the plain reason seems to be, that he has merely followed the 
sacred records in his account of those times. Philo had no 
occasion to speak of the formation of the Hebrew Canon, in 
those of his writings now extant ; and the Son of Sirach, in 
his catalogue of Jewish worthies (Sir. xlv — xlix), has even 
omitted Ezra himself, probably because of his lack of politi- 
cal eminence. No certain conclusion can be drawn from such 
omission on the part of these writers, against the fact that 
there was a Great Synagogue. The Mishna (Pirqe Aboth, 
c. 1) expressly appeals to it ; and so do the train of Rabbini- 
cal writings in after times. 

One striking fact, of a historical nature, will serve to ren- 
der probable the supposition, that synagogue instruction and 
worship must have been somewhat early instituted after the 
return of the Jews from their long exile. TVe have no 
knowledge, that the mass of that nation have, at any period 
since that, become the devotees of heathen and idol-worship. 
Antiochus Epiphanes did his best to corrupt them, both by 



84 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

persuasion and force. He even bestowed the office of high 
priest on such persons as seconded his views. But all in 
vain, as to the mass of the people. Only the refuse of the 
Jewish community hearkened to him. Judas Maccabaeus 
and his companions made opposition, roused the Hebrew na- 
tion, and finally expelled all traces of heathen woi'ship from 
their borders. 

"What now was it which kept the Jews, for more than five 
centuries before the Christian era, from becoming idolaters, 
as they had so constantly been (short intervals excepted) du- 
ring almost a thousand years before the Babylonish exile ? 
Something must not only have operated, but operated power- 
fully. Their temptations to embrace idol-worship were not 
stronger or more frequent before this exile, than after it ; 
specially under the Syrian kings, the Seleucidae. Yet they 
remained firm and unwavering, with the small exception 
mentioned that took place during the reign of Antiochus Epi- 
phanes. I cannot imagine any cause adequate to produce such 
an effect, excepting that of religious instruction. Nor can 
I see any way in which this could be accomplished, except- 
ing in that of reading and preaching in synagogues. The 
Mosaic institute, that the Law should be read once in seven 
years to the assembled mass of the Hebrew nation, had been 
tried for almost a thousand years, and had been found quite 
inefficacious, particularly as this reading was often neglected. 
What more probable, than that the enlightened and patriotic 
and pious Ezra and Nehemiah devised and established the 
social worship of the synagogues, as a preservative from all 
inclination to future apostasy and idolatry ? 

Since we have no express and certain history in regard to 
this point ; since moreover we know that Synagogues were in 
being a long time {an aQ%a!m> ■ysveav) before the Christian 
era ; since the Jews were actually preserved from idolatry 
and heathen rites, and no means but efficient religious in- 
struction which is general are adequate to produce such an ef- 
fect ; I see no good reason why we may not regard it as al- 
together probable, that synagogue-worship was devised and 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 85 

commenced under the superintendence of Ezra, Nehemiah, 
and the men of the fiViia : nOX3 or Great Synagogue. 

But there is another branch of this topic respecting reli- 
gious instruction, to which I have hitherto but merely advert- 
ed, but which, standing intimately connected as it does with 
the topic just discussed, should here be brought more distinct- 
ly into view. I refer to the priests and Invites of the Mosa- 
ic dispensation. 

Whoever borrows his views of the offices of these from the 
functions of a Christian pastor, and regards them as having a 
similar employment among the ancient Hebrews, will find, on 
examination, that he is radically mistaken. The fact that 
there were no synagogues before the Babylonish exile, i. e; no 
places for public reading of the Scriptures and for preaching, 
of itself shows, that there could have been no regular order 
of men among the Jews, who performed a public part in social 
and devotional worship. Had Moses made provision for 
such an order of men, he would have made provision for the 
means of performing their proper duties. 

A glance at the Mosaic institutes serves to show at once, 
that the sum of duties attached to the priestly office, was the 
performance of those services which were appropriate to the 
ritual worship of the tabernacle and temple. These duties 
required so much bodily vigour and activity, that they were 
limited to those who were between the age of thirty and fifty, 
Num. 4: 3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47. To the office of priest, 
only Aaron and his posterity were consecrated, ; Ex. 28: 1. 30: 
30. 29: 5 seq. All the rest of the Levites were given to Aaron 
and his sons, as mere subsidiaries in the performance of their 
duties ; Num. 3: 9. 8: 19, comp. Num. iv. viii. throughout. 
In the time of David, the priests had become so numerous, 
that they were divided by him into twenty-four courses or di- 
visions, each of which in turn served a definite period of time, 
in the temple ; 1 Chron. 23: 3, 6. 24: 3 seq. comp. Luke 1: 5. 
As to the Levites, it appears that there were, at one and the 
same time, 38,000 males, who were of the age of thirty and 
upwards. To these were assigned by that pious king, duties 



86 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

appropriate to their condition in accordance with the institu- 
tions of Moses ; 1 Chron. 23: 3, 4, comp. 26: 29. The great- 
er part, at that time, were employed in aiding to build the 
temple to be erected by Solomon. But still, 6,000 were ap- 
pointed to be ni^sidl ai"i^ : j , magistrates and judges. Inas- 
much as the verb 'ntaffl signifies to xorite or inscribe, it would 
seem quite probable that the Shoterim were magistrates who 
kept records for their own use and for the public weal. In a 
literal sense, "i^iiu would seem to be equivalent to yQafi^ia7£v$ ; 
but it is evidently of wider usage in the Hebrew Scriptures, 
and designates magistrates, probably those whose business 
was connected with records. In Deut. 16: 18, the very same 
officers are named, and Moses gives commandment that they 
shall be appointed in all the gates of the Hebrews. Moses 
does not say that these respective offices shall be limited to 
the Levites only ; but it is quite evident, that since they were 
the most enlightened part of the Jewish community, on this 
account they would most naturally receive such appoint- 
ments. 

The manner in which the Levites were disposed of by 
Moses and Joshua, shows that they were not, and were not 
designed to be, teachers among the people in the capacity of 
school-masters. God gave commandment to Aaron, that nei- 
ther he nor his posterity, the priests, should have any inheri- 
tance in the land of Palestine or any part among their breth- 
ren ; Num. 18: 20. At the same time, provision w T as made 
for the maintenance and accommodation of priests and Levites. 
Unto Moses it was said, that he should command the children 
of Israel to assign unto the Levites cities to dwell in, and the 
suburbs around them ; Num. 35: 2. Accordingly, after the 
conquest of Canaan we find Joshua assigning to them forty- 
eight cities with their suburbs, scattered over all the country. 
As they were restrained from the ownership and cultivation 
of lands for agriculture, (the suburbs of their cities being as- 
signed to them merely for gardens), their fellow citizens were 
bound to provide for them by tithes, first-fruit offerings, and 
parts of beasts sacrificed; Deut. 18: 3 — 5, comp. 26: 12. 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 87 

Special liberality and charity to the Levites are strongly en- 
joined by Moses ; Deut. 12: 19. 14: 27—29. In return for 
all these contributions, the Levites were to be the judges and 
magistrates of the land, in both an ecclesiastical and civil re- 
spect Indeed the one was inseparably connected with the 
other. It was predicted by the dying Jacob, that the posteri- 
ty of Levi should be scattered in Israel ; Gen. 47: 7. This 
was necessary, indeed, according to the arrangement made 
by Moses. The Levites and priests were the appropriate 
jurisconsults of the nation. They did not go round, and preach 
and teach in a public capacity ; but it was their business to 
settle and adjudicate all controversies between man and man ; 
to declare the law in all cases of trespass or injury ; to de- 
cide all dubious cases of conscience about rites and ceremo- 
nies ; to give counsel, whenever asked, about anything which 
pertained to duty ; and in a word, to perform the office of 
judges and of religious and civil monitors. In this light Eze- 
kiel places the matter, 44: 23 seq. So Malachi, 2: 7. Thus 
did Jehoshaphat regard their office, specially the priestly of- 
fice ; 2 Chron. 19: 8 seq. In the same light Moses has pla- 
ced the whole matter; Deut. 17: 8 — 10. 24: 9 Lev. 10: 10, 
11. Ordinarily, to say the least, and at any rate according 
to strict rule, the Levites were to abide in the cities assigned to 
them, and not go elsewhere to reside. And if this be so, how 
could they be religious teachers in synagogues, (if such there 
had been), in all the villages of Palestine? 

In Judg. 17: 7 seq. is an account of a wandering Levite, 
who, at the invitation of Micah at mount Ephraim, took up 
his abode with him, and became his priest. But Micah was 
an idolater (Judg. 17: 4, 5) ; and the Levite of course must 
have apostatized from the worship of Jehovah, in order to 
become a priest of Micah. This therefore is no example in 
point, to prove that the Levites ordinarily wandered through 
the land, taking up their residence wherever it might suit their 
convenience. We have also an account of Jehoshaphat's 
sending a special deputation of princes and Levites " to teach 
in the cities of Judah" (2 Chron. 17: 7 seq.), who carried with 



SS § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

them a copy of the Law. But this was an extraordinary, not 
an ordinary, measure. Indeed, there is nothing in the Old 
Testament which shows that the priests or Levites were tra- 
veling preachers or teachers ; nothing which shows that they 
were teachers in their own limited circle, in the ordinary sense 
of that word. As judges and jurisconsults, and expounders 
of the Law in doubtful cases, and helpers in matters of reli- 
gious doubts or scruples, they were indeed teachers. But 
this duty they performed only when required to do it. They 
were passive in the business of teaching, not active and ag- 
gressive. It was their business to give an opinion when ask- 
ed, but not to persuade others to assemble and learn their duty 
from them. 

We must, in justice to the case before us, proceed one step 
further still. I know of no passage in the Old Testament, 
which enjoins upon priests or Levites as their ordinary duty, 
to pray with and for the people, and to give them religious 
instruction by sermons or by reading the Scriptures. If there 
is any passage in the Old Testament which even hints at 
prayer for the people being a duty of the priests in the temple 
itself, yea of even the high priest, it has escaped my repeated 
and attentive search. I doubt not that all pious priests did 
pray in the temple. I cannot doubt that every pious high 
priest especially would intercede for the people, on the great 
day of atonement, and on other like occasions. But where 
is this enjoined? AVhat part of the Mosaic institutes made it 
their duty ? 

In Luke 1: 10 seq. we have an account of Zacharias in the 
act of his official duty. And what did he ? He burned in- 
cense in the temple, while all the multitude of the people tvere 
praying in the outer court. If it be said that the angel who 
appears to him, promises the birth of a child in answer to his 
pniyers (Luke 1: 13), yet we cannot suppose these prayers 
to have been then and there uttered. They would have been 
unseemly, unbecoming. And besides this, it appears from v. 
18th, that Zacharias had for a long time utterly despaired of 
offspring, and therefore we cannot suppose him to have been 



§ 4 LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 89 

then and these praying for what he plainly deemed impossible. 
Of course his prayer, to which the angel refers, must have been 
on some former occasion, and probably in a place more ap- 
propriate to such a request, than that of the temple of God 
where he had an important public part to act. 

Let the intelligent and considerate reader, now, put all 
these things together, and ask himself, whether there were 
any regular and stated means of instruction or active instruc- 
ters for the Jewish nation, before their exile. He cannot 
find them. But he can find, on extraordinary occasions, fast- 
ing, prayers, reading of the Scriptures, a renewal of the cov- 
enant, and other religious transactions. But all this is noth- 
ing to the purpose of establishing the position, that before the 
Babylonish exile there were synagogues and regular and sta- 
ted religious teachers of the people. 

One remark here forces itself upon me. To argue from a 
Levitical priesthood to a Christian ministry, and to prove the 
validity of the latter institution by an appeal to the former, 
and specially to compare the official duties of the two respec- 
tive classes with an assumption that they are parallel — is out 
of all question. The ancient ritual is abolished. The whole 
of the sacrifices and offerings, and of course the whole of the 
rites and forms belonging to them, is forever done away by 
the death of Christ, if any credit is to be given to Paul, par- 
ticularly in his epistle to the Hebrews. And as to the main 
official duty of a Christian minister, viz. the communication 
of religious instruction, it stands as it were even in direct 
contrast with that of the priest and Levite, so far as all its 
active aggressive functions are concerned. If Christian min- 
isters are to find any parallel under the Mosaic dispensation, 
it must be in its prophets, not in its priests. 

To complete the course which we have pursued, in making 
inquiry respecting the state of literature and education and 
religious instruction among the Hebrews, it is necessary that 
we should take a brief view of the prophetic order be- 
longing to that nation ; and particularly ought we to do this, 
because of the relation which the prophets sustained to the 



90 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

Holy Scriptures, whose critical history we are endeavouring 
to pursue. 

The word prophet has had a variety of meanings attached 
to it by various critics. The biblical idea, as it seems to me, 
is fully unfolded and designated in the definition which Kno- 
bel has given : " A prophet is a person gifted with superior 
intelligence and filled with religious inspiration, who stands 
in an intimate relation to God, and as the servant of God is 
active in the promotion of religious purposes, specially those 
which concern the divine authority and government ;" Kno- 
bel, Prophetismus, I. p. 113. The most usual name of 
-prophet in the Old Testament Scriptures is K*Oi .* Other 

* The verb VtSi, employed only in Niphaland Hithpael, Kno- 
bel regards, (and rightly in my apprehension), as related to the 
Hebrew verbs SOi , TH3 } nin3 , ^3 , all of which mean to pour 
forth, to pour out, to cry out, i. e. to pour forth words or sounds, 
to shoot or stream forth, etc. ; and kindred to these are the Chai- 
se y 
dee SO? , iD? , rq? ; the Syriac ^™SJ , .. «*,*") 1 ; the Arabic 

sjl> , kjd , ^s-o ; all kindred in meaning to the Hebrew 

verbs named above. Hence X35 seems to mean, to pour forth 
or pour out, i. e. to utter one's internal excitement or inspiration. It 
is not difficult, perhaps, to assign a good philological reason, 
why the verb N33 , XSSnfi , is used only in the reflexive conjuga- 
tions ; for the generic meaning of these verbs thus employed 
seems to be, to exhibit one's self as excited or inspired. Hence the 
manifold application of the words in question ; for they apply 
not only to uttering predictions, but to commination, reproof, 
condemnation, warning, exhorting, consoling, exciting, promis- 
ing, and the like. In a word, to prophesy embraces everything 
which a religious and moral teacher may say or utter by the aid 
of inspiration. Of course it applies to sacred music, i. e. to 
psalms or hymns sung either with or without instrumental mu- 
sic; see 1 Sam. 10: 5. 1 Chron. 25: 1, 2. 1 Sam. 19:20. comp. 
1 Kings 18: 28, 29, where the verb is applied to the shouting and 
cantillation of the priests of Baal, who attempted an imitation of 
the true prophets. The Jews, as every reader of the Hebrew 
Bible knows, have designated the books of Joshua, Judges, Sam- 
uel, and Kings as prophetical books, probably from the persua- 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 91 

not unfrequent names of prophets are nth a seer, and nsn a 
beholder. Of course the meaning is one par excellence, de- 
noting a person who sees or beholds what others do not, such 
as secret things, future events, and the like. In a number of 
cases prophets are called d^SS , i. e. those who espy, explore, 
etc. This refers to the appropriate duty of prophets as the 
moral guardians and observers of the people. In the same 
way is the designation ""intD , watchman, employed, and for the 
like reason. In reference also to spiritual care for the peo- 
ple and for their proper religious nurture, the prophets are 
occasionally named d^'-i , shepherds. In regard to the prop- 
er work which a prophet has to perform, he is also occasion- 
ally named man of God, servant of Jehovah, and now and 
then angel or messenger of Jehovah. Among these appella- 
tions, man of God and seer are the more ancient, (see 1 
Sam. 9: 9) ; &OdS , an inspired man, is more general after the 
time of Samuel ; and spy, watchman, and servant of Jehovah, 
appear more frequently in the later Hebrew writers. 

If the reader will cast his eye, for a moment, over the 
various appellations of the prophets now placed before him, 
he will gather at once, with a good degree of certainty, what 
the proper office and duty of a Hebrew prophet was. In- 
stead of being a mere fidvzig, i. e. a superintendent of ritual 
observances, a soothsayer, an oracle-monger, or the like, he 
was the moral teacher and preacher of his nation. His duty 
was not like to that of the priests; although occasionally 
some of the prophets superintended sacrifices and other parts 
of the ritual, e. g. Samuel, Elijah, and some others. All that 
Mas ritual, however, if resorted to on any occasion by a 
prophet, was merely subordinate and subsidiary, and not his 
main or appropriate business. 

sion that they were composed by prophets. According to the 
broad meaning given to Xdi above, any book composed by an 
inspired writer might be named prophecy. And in a similar lat- 
itude are the words ngocptjitlix and TtoocpijTtva employed in the 
New Testament. In the language of the Bible, the uttering of 
predictions, in the appropriate sense of this word, is only a spe- 
cies under the genus prophesying. 



92 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

The Old Testament is full of the history, doings, and say- 
ings of the prophets. Nearly one half of it consists of their 
peculiar discourses or prophetic compositions ; of which only 
a small part is prediction in the proper sense of that word. 
Prophets were the principal instruments in keeping alive the 
Mosaic religion at all times, whether one looks to the spirit 
or to the ritual of it. Inasmuch as the Jewish Common- 
wealth was ecclesiastico-political, prophets were politicians as 
well as preachers. Nothing is more common, than the his- 
tory of their interposition in matters that concern the politi- 
cal weal of the Jewish State. To give counsel to magis- 
trates, on occasion of exigency, was regarded as one of their 
appropriate duties. 

It is singular, that after Moses and Miriam, no prophet or 
prophetess is mentioned until the time of Deborah, which 
was more than a century after the conquest of Canaan. And 
even she seems rather to be called a prophetess on account of 
her song of triumph (Judges v.), than on account of her mode 
of life. It is clear that she was a remarkable woman ; for 
she was at the head of the nation, a iiasiu , when she led on 
the Hebrew army to battle against Sisera ; Judges 4: 4. An 
anonymous prophet is presented to view in Judges 6: 8 seq., 
who administers severe rebuke. Besides these, we meet 
with no prophetic personages until we come down to the 
time of Samuel, which, counting from the death of Moses, 
makes a period of more than 300 years. If there were no 
more prophets than appear on the face of the sacred records 
during this long period, it is no wonder that the Jews, who 
had been partially idolaters in Egypt, relapsed very often, as 
the book of Judges tells us they did, into the idolatry of the 
heathen. This had its attractions. It put no restraint on the 
passions. It might be, (although it does not seem probable), 
that Priests and Levites urged the ritual of the Law, and ex- 
acted all its ceremonial observances ; but if they did, these 
would have had but little efficacy in preserving the nation 
from corruption, so long as prophets, the preachers of right- 
eousness, were wanting. 



§ 4. LITERATURE OP THE HEBREWS. 93 

With Samuel opens a new and splendid era, both as to the 
civil and religious concerns of the Jews. This distinguished 
servant of God acted not only as prophet, but was also a 
judge (EStfi) ; and not unfrequently did he act as a priest; 
see 1 Samuel 7: 9 seq. 9: 22 seq. 10: 8. 11: 15. 16: 1 seq. 
He commenced his duties about 1100 B. C, and the prophet- 
ic order, founded (if one may use the expression) by him, 
continued, with little interruption, down to the time of Mala- 
chi, i. e. about 400 B. C. Thus, for some 700 years, was 
the Jewish nation provided with religious teachers, by spe- 
cial divine interposition, and therefore they had much less 
apology for departure during this time from the institutions 
of Moses, than they had in former days, during the adminis- 
tration of the Judges. 

Samuel began his career very young, and nobly did he 
maintain it during a period of some forty years. It was dur- 
ing his life, that prophetic institutions or schools of the pro- 
phets first made their appearance. Doubtless this illustrious 
reformer saw and felt the necessity of more efficient and more 
widely diffused religious instruction, than had previously 
been given. The young men educated at those schools seem 
plainly to have been designed for the prophetic office. Hence 
they are frequently named prophets, (e. g. 1 Sam. 10: 5, 
10—12. 19: 20, 24. 1 Kings 18: 4, 13. 19: 14. 22: 6 seq.), 
in relation to the office for which they were being qualified. 
At other times, their discipleship or relation to their prophet- 
ic masters is pointed out by the appellation sons of the pro- 
phets ; e. g. 1 Kings 20: 35. 2 Kings 2: 3, 5, 7, 15. 4: 1, 38. 
5: 22. 6: 1. 9: 1, 4! The Hebrews often called a teacher 
father (nx) ; and of course the pupil or learner was a son. 
So in the New Testament, vtog, %i.-/.vov, and rexvi'ov, are em- 
ployed to designate disciples or learners. 

The notices of these schools, in sacred history, are confined 
to the time of Samuel, and to that of Elijah and Elisha. We 
find nothing concerning them at other periods. If such schools 
existed after the last-named period, it would seem at least that 
they could not have had any considerable notoriety. In Sam- 



94 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREAVS. 

uel's time there were large companies of prophetic pupils in 
several places ; 1 Sam. 10: 5, 10. 19: 20. Aliab conld, in 
his day, muster 400 prophets of Baal at a time, 1 Kings 22: 6. 
Obadiah, one of his pious officers, concealed 100 of the pro- 
phets of Jehovah, from Jezebel's bloody persecution ; 1 Kings 
18: 4, 13. Fifty of the prophets at Bethel attended on Elijah 
and Elisha; 2 Kings 2: 3, 7. Those at Jericho, at the same 
time, appear to have been still more numerous ; 2 Kings 2: 
16 seq. In Elisha's time, we find 100 of the prophets at Gilgal ; 
2 Kings 4: 38 — 43. Various places also are named as the 
abode of the sons of the prophets, viz. Rama, Bethel, Gibeah, 
Jericho, Gilgal, and mount Ephraim. They appear, more- 
over, to have lived together in the manner of Coenobites, and 
to have been superintended and instructed by some aged 
prophet. But sacred history gives us no minute particulars 
as to the manner of their education. Yet doubtless, as there 
were to be moral and religious teachers, the Law of Moses 
must have been the subject of their special study. Even 
Knobel, who maintains the later composition of the Pentateuch, 
asserts that they must have been orally instructed in the fheo- 
cratical Law (as he names it), that was traditionally current 
at that period ; Proph. II. p. 46. That sacred music, with 
the voice and with instruments, was in part an object of special 
attention, is clear from 1 Sam. 10: 5. 19: 20. Saul, who 
meets with a company of these prophetic musicians, is said, 
by the sacred historian, to have prophesied along with them, 
because he united in their music ; 1 Sam. 10: 6, 10 — 12. It 
does not follow, however, that all who attended the schools of 
the prophets, did actually assume the prophetic office after 
quitting the schools ; but it is altogether probable, that most 
of the religious teachers among the Jews, from the time of 
Samuel down to the death of Elisha, (a period of about 200 
years,) were first learners in the schools of the prophets. 

That the notable age of sacred lyric poetry among the He- 
brews, during which David, Asaph, Heman, Ethan, the sons 
of Korah, Solomon, and others, were so conspicuous as poets, 
connects itself with the instructions given in the schools of the 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 95 

prophets, one cannot well doubt. During the period, more- 
over, between Samuel and Elisha, we find a considerable 
number of distinguished prophets, as well as poets ; e. g. Gad 
(2 Sam. 24: 11—13), Nathan (2 Sam. 12: 15), Ahijah 
(1 Kings 11: 29 seq.), Shemaiah (1 Kings 12: 22), several 
prophets whose names are not given (1 Kings 13: 1 — 3, 11), 
Iddo (2 Chron. 9: 29), Oded (2 Chron. 15: 1), Hanani 
(2 Chron. 16: 7), Jehu (2 Chron. 19: 2), Jahaziel (2 Chron. 
20: 14), Eliezer (2 Chron. 20: 37), Elijah (2 Chron. 21: 12), 
and Elisha (1 Kings 19: 16). During the lives of these two 
last named prophets, we find repeated mention of hundreds 
more of prophets, many or most of whom had probably been 
connected as pupils with the schools which they taught. 

As to all the prophets now in view, however, although some 
of them were most highly distinguished by talents, activity, 
and usefulness, we have no remains of works written by them, 
but only a brief account by others of their sayings or doings 
on particular occasions, which is contained in the historical 
books of our present Scriptures. It is an assertion of the 
Talmudic Rabbins (Baba Bathra fol. 14. c. 4. comp. fol. 15. 
c. 1), that " Samuel wrote the books which bear his name, 
and also the books of Judges and Ruth." The two latter, i. e. 
the substance of them, it is possible that he wrote. But as 
to the two books of Samuel, they are out of the question. The 
death of Samuel is related in 1 Sam. xxv. Consequently he 
could not have written the remainder. Nor is it probable 
that he wrote what precedes chap. xxv. The great era of 
prophetic composition commences with Joel, Amos, Hosea, 
and Isaiah, about 800—730 B. C. 

From the more circumstantial history of Samuel, Elijah, and 
Elisha, it appears that they continued in their office down to 
the time of their decease. In other words, the prophetic of- 
fice, as then held and exercised, seems to have been a business 
of life. Was this so with all the prophets who have been 
named or adverted to above ? Or did they assume the office 
merely for a temporary exigency, and lay it aside when that 
exigency had passed by ? 



96 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

With entire certainty we cannot answer these questions. 
As to most of the prophets, it seems to me more probable that 
they held their office permanently ; for the moral necessities 
of the people, which called the office into being, seem to have 
been such as to render the continuance of it highly important 
and useful. We meet with aged prophets ; and the tenor of 
the narrations respecting this order of men, favors the idea that 
the office was one which was regular and long continued, so 
far as it respected the duty of moral and religious teaching. 
It is unnecessary to assume that all prophets were endowed 
with miraculous powers. Such was not the case even with 
Christian prophets, if we may credit the declarations of Paul 
in his account of their gifts, in his first epistle to the Corinthi- 
ans ; and I know of no testimony more authentic than his. 
But the fact that the prophets (diS^SS) were inspired persons, 
would seem of course to indicate, that they addressed the peo- 
ple under the special aid and guidance of the Spirit of God. 
It need not, and should not, be supposed, that at all times, 
and on all occasions, these prophets spoke and acted under 
such a special guidance. So much was not true of even the 
apostles of Christ. Enough that at due times, and in ap- 
propriate circumstances, they were specially guided and aid- 
ed by the Spirit of God. 

Their sermons or addresses to the people they did not, as 
it would seem, commit to xoriting at the period in question. 
We have therefore, at the present time, only some fragments 
of what they uttered, which were collected and recorded by 
others. It is natural to conclude from this, that they regard- 
ed themselves as ministers of God and servants of the theocra- 
cy, only for their own day and generation. The permanent 
monuments of the prophetic class are of a later date, and 
commence with Joel, Hosea, and Isaiah. 

A glance at facts such as these, specially if we view them 
as they stand connected with and related to each other, Avould 
seem to admonish us quite plainly, that in the prophetic order, 
if we except Moses the distinguished founder of the Jewish 
Commonwealth, a gradual advance to higher degrees of cul- 



§ 4. LITERATURE OP THE HEBREWS. 97 

ture and usefulness is perceptible. Who, except Moses, can 
compete with those prophets, whose immortal works are still 
so conspicuous in the Jewish Scriptures ? We do truly re- 
vere and honour such men as Samuel, Elijah, and others of 
the like spirit ; but we do more than homage or honour to such 
men as Isaiah, Joel, Nahum, and their compeers. 

To the canon of Scripture some considerable accession was 
made as early as the time of David and Solomon. There 
might have been a part of the books of Joshua and Judges 
extant at that period; and if so, these, with the Law of Mo- 
ses, constituted the then Jewish Canon. David and his con- 
temporary sacred poets made very valuable accessions to the 
Jewish Scriptures ; especially to the devotional part of them. 
Down to the present hour, the compositions of these men are 
regarded as excelling those of any or all others, in respect to 
their adaptedness to be the medium of praise and of devout 
meditation. I will not say, that these compositions introduced 
a new element into the Jewish religion and worship ; but I 
may safely affirm, that at least they made a new development 
of the Mosaic religion, and gave to all ages then to come 
some of the most exquisite models of expressing devout, grate- 
ful, humble, and pious feeling. They will go down to the end 
of the world with unabated, yea with increasing honor. The 
greater part of the book of Psalms was composed by David 
and his contemporaries ; and the few Psalms that have been 
since added, show that sacred lyrics among the Hebrews, had 
its golden age and also its silver one, and that the golden age 
commenced, and attained its highest elevation, under David 
and his contemporaries. Only now and then did some pecu- 
liar occasion afterwards call into exercise talents of a lyric na- 
ture, in the composition of devotional psalms and hymns. 

The book of Proverbs, moreover, must have been a sub- 
stantial aid to the prophetic teachers of morals. It would 
seem, however, that from the 25 th chapter onward, the com- 
position lay in an uncopied Ms., until the time of Hezekiah j 
Prov. 25: 1. But be this as it may, the preceding portion of 
the book is exceedingly weighty, particularly on the score of 
9 



98 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

morals and circumspect and prudential behaviour. Prophets 
who lived after the writing of this, certainly had a somewhat 
ample store of choice texts, for discourses on the subject of 
morality and sober demeanour. 

I have distinguished David and his colleagues, the devo- 
tional poets, from the prophets, who were the subject of our 
preceding consideration. But in so doing, I have rather fol- 
lowed our own common usas loquendi than that which is ap- 
propriate, to the Scriptures. Whatever is written or uttered by 
the aid of inspiration, the scriptural writers name prophecy. 
The ground of employing the word in this extensive sense, 
has already been presented in the preceding pages. 

Let us now pass to the next and most splendid period of 
the Hebrew prophetic development. It begins with Joel, in 
the reign of Uzziah, about 800 B. O, and continues down to 
the end of the Assyrian dominion, not far from 700 B. C. 
It has been named the Assyrian period by Knobel, because 
most of the prophets during this period have reference more 
or less, in their discourses, to the Assyrian invasions of Pales- 
tine, or to those of the neighbouring countries of the heathen 
who were under the dominion of Assyria, or were associated 
with it. 

It would not be consistent with my main design, to discuss 
such questions respecting each prophetic book, as belong only 
to the specialities of an ample and scientific introduction to 
the Old Testament. I shall not therefore enter into any mi- 
nute discussions, the particular object of which would be to 
vindicate the genuineness of those prophetical books which bear 
the names of their authors. Nor will the plan of my work 
permit me to canvass at length the question, whether particu- 
lar parts of Isaiah, for example, or of Zechariah, or of Daniel, 
are supposititious ; which two last works, however, belong to 
a later period than the one with which I am now concerned, 
unless indeed (with Knobel and some others) we attribute 
Zech. ix — xi. to the Zechariah the son of Berechiah men- 
tioned in Isa. 8: 2. Enough for my purpose, that the Old 
Testament books which bear the names of their authors, were 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 99 

extant, and were acknowledged by the Jewish nation as gen- 
uine works, before and at the period in which Malachi, the 
last of the Hebrew prophets, lived ; that they were regarded 
as inspired and authoritative ; and that Christ and his apostles 
have sanctioned them as such. On the general subject of the 
genuineness of the Hebrew Scriptures, I shall produce, in the 
sequel, a striking passage from Eichhorn. Their authority 
or sanction does not depend on the fact, whether this prophet 
or that one wrote a particular book, or parts of it, but on the 
fact that a prophet wrote them. Of course, this is my main 
point. And since I am not now writing a critico-exegetical 
introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, I may dispense in 
general with all questions which belong merely to minute and 
special criticism. My object leads me to bring to view the 
Jewish sacred books as regarded in a general way ; and I 
may be permitted to treat them, when they are not anonymous, 
as proceeding from the persons whose names they bear. 

When I mention then, as belonging to the period in ques- 
tion, the works of Joel, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, Micah, and Na- 
hum, (and perhaps Jonah), I need say nothing more to char- 
acterize this golden age of the prophets in the capacity of 
writers. Isaiah is surely without a parallel ; and as for Joel 
and Nahum, all effort to commend them to readers of taste 
would be useless. In the other prophets just named, there are 
passages of great splendour ; and in all of them there is such 
a lofty tone of piety, and zeal for God and his honour, with 
such inflexible morality, as almost transports the reader into 
New Testament times. Indeed one may well compare the 
spiritual and elevated views of these writers, with the leading 
principles of the gospel-dispensation as developed by our Sa- 
viour in his conversation with the woman of Samaria ; John 
4: 19 seq. Let us listen for a moment to Isaiah : 

" What is the multitude of your sacrifices to me, saith Jehovah ? 
I am satiated with the offerings of rams and of fatted beasts ; 
The blood of bullocks and of lambs and of he-goats I do not desire. 
When ye come to exhibit yourselves before me, 
Who hath required this at your bands — the treading of my courts ? 
Bring no more worthless offerings; 



100 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

Incense ! — it is an abomination to me. 

As to your new moons and sabbaths and summoning of assemblies, 

I cannot endure iniquity and solemn meeting. 

Your monthly festivals and appointed feasts my soul hateth ; 

They are a burden to me, I cannot bear with them. 

And when ye spread out your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you. 

Yea, when ye multiply prayer, I will not hear. 

Your hands are full of blood. 

Wash ye ; make ye clean ; 

Put away your evil deeds from before mine eyes ; 

Cease to do evil ; learn to do well ; 

Seek after justice ; console the afflicted ; 

Vindicate the orphan; plead the cause of the widow." 

Who cannot easily imagine himself to be listening to the 
Great Teacher, the Light of the world, when he hears such 
a passage as this ? And many such, i. e. of the like tenor with 
this, are there in the works of the prophets now before us. 
In respect to the so called Pseudo-Isaiah and Jonah, placed 
by recent critics among the works of the second or Chaldee 
period of prophecy, I shall notice them in my remarks on that 
period. 

The last king of Assyria, of whom any mention is made in 
the sacred records, was Esar-haddon, who sent colonists from 
his dominions into the land of the ten tribes, about 678 B. C. ; 
Ez. 4: 2. He was the last of the Assyrian kings, who ap- 
pears to have possessed any great degree of energy and ac- 
tivity. At all events, we hear no more of incursions into Ju- 
dea, after his reign ; and it was but some fifty years after- 
wards, that Nabopolassar, a tributary king of the Babylonian 
province, threw off the yoke of Assyria, and made Babylon 
an independent kingdom. His son Nebuchadnezzar enlarged 
its borders, and became master of the greater part of Asia 
Avest of the Euphrates. To Babylon then are we to look, 
from the latter part of the reign of Josiah onward, for most of 
the annoyances which the Hebrew commonwealth experi- 
enced during its last period before the exile ; and most of the 
prophets who lived from the time of Josiah onward to the end 
of the captivity, in their writings still extant, refer principally 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 101 

to Babylon, or the land of the Chaldees (which is the same), 
or to some of its tributaries or allies, as the enemies whom the 
Hebrews have most reason to dread. Hence, in classifying 
the prophets with reference to a predominating element in 
their discourses, we may name this latter period, in which the 
prophetic order were somewhat conspicuous, the Chaldean 

PERIOD. 

It is remarkable, that from the year 710 B. C. down to 
640 B. C, i. e. for seventy years, scarcely a vestige of any 
Hebrew prophet is to be found in the Jewish history. No 
wonder at this. The fifty-seven years of unrelenting perse- 
cution of the true worshippers of God, and the rank and zeal- 
ous idolatry even of the grossest kind which made up the 
reigns of Manasseh and of Anion, must needs have cast off or 
driven away all the true prophets of God. At first there seem 
to have been some who warned Manasseh (2 Chron. 33: 10), 
but he would not hearken to them. And so entirely does the 
holy land appear to have been destitute of prophets, in conse- 
quence of persecution and idolatry, that they did not make 
their appearance again, so far as we know, until some time 
during the reign of Josiah ; 2 Chron. 34: 8, 22. Under him 
we find Zephaniah predicting the destruction of Assyria and 
its capital, Nineveh, 2: 13 — 15, which took place about that 
time. Moreover Huldah, a prophetess, is consulted by Jo- 
siah and Hilkiah, on the occasion of finding a copy of the Law 
in the temple ; 2 Chron. 34: 22. Jeremiah began his pro- 
phetic duties in the thirteenth year of Josiah, i. e. 629 B. C. 
If Zech. xii — xiv. belongs to an older prophet than the Zech- 
ariah who lived after the return from exile, it should probably 
be assigned to the period about 607 — 604 B. C. (See Knobel, 
Proph. II. p. 280 seq.) At the same period the prophecy of 
Habakkuk may most probably be placed. Ezekiel, who was 
carried into exile about 600 B. C, began his prophetic work 
about 595 B. C, and continued it until 573. The greater 
part of his prophecies relate to his countrymen who still re- 
mained in Palestine, after the deportation to Mesopotamia 
in the reign of Jehoiachin. But some of them relate to his 
9* 



102 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

fellow-countrymen in exile with himself. The brief work of 
Obadiah seems, by the historical circumstances to which it re- 
fers, plainly to belong to the period of the exile. His prophecy 
is directed against the Edomites ; and one may compare with 
it Jer. 49: 7— 22. Ezek. 25: 12— 14. 35:1—15. Those who 
maintain the late composition of Isa. xl — Ixvi., also compare 
Isa. 63: 1 — 6 with the prophecy of Obadiah ; and it seems to 
tally well with this and with the other prophecies just named. 

The turn which recent criticism has taken, among a large 
class of commentators and writers on subjects of sacred litera- 
ture in Germany, with respect to various and extensive por- 
tions of the book of Isaiah, must be well known to all who 
are acquainted with the recent history of sacred literature. 
As I have already said, it comports not with my present ob- 
ject minutely to discuss the questions in regard to this matter, 
which have recently sprung up. But I must at least touch 
upon this topic, although as summarily as may be. 

No allegations are made at present with more confidence 
by many, than that Is. xl — lxvi. belongs to a writer near the 
close of the exile, to whom Cyrus was known by name, and 
whose intentions he well understood. To the same period, but 
(as most of these critics suppose) to a different author, is to be 
assigned Is. xiii. xiv. In their opinion, to the author of the 
latter, perhaps, belongs Is. 21: 1 — 10 ; at any rate, it must be 
assigned, as they aver, to the close of the exile. Isa. xxiv — 
xxvii. belongs, as some of the latest critics say, (e. g. Knobel), 
to a prophet who lived near the beginning of the exile. Isa. 
xxxiv. xxxv. is to be assigned to the middle of the exile. 
Thus we have, if we may believe these critics, no less than 
five or six works of so many different prophets, in our present 
book of Isaiah. 

A few hints I may be permitted to suggest, in relation to 
this critical theory. It seems to me to be pressed with some 
serious difficulties, from which no adequate relief has yet been 
found. 

(I) All ancient Jewish and Christian tradition is against 
it. So far back as Sira chides, we have express testimony of 



§ 4. LITERATURE OP THE HEBREWS. 103 

the Jewish views. He calls Isaiah " the great prophet, and 
faithful (or, worthy of credit, marog) in his vision." He 
speaks of him as comforting Zion, and showing " the things 
that would happen ecog tov aioavog, forever, and hidden things 
before they take place ;" 48: 22 — 25. Does not this specially 
refer to the latter part of Isaiah ? So Philo, Josephus, and 
the New Testament in very many places from the so-called 
Pseudo-Isaiah, (indeed altogether most frequently is this part 
of the book referred to in the New Testament), which are as- 
cribed to Isaiah ; and so the Christian Fathers and the Tal- 
mud. The discovery of diverse authors is one that is ac- 
knowledged to have been made but a few years since. 

(2) The discrepancy of diction, which is even confidently 
alleged to be a satisfactory proof of different authorship in the 
various parts of the book, in my apprehension has no solid 
basis adequate to support this allegation. The several parts 
of the book which are conceded to Isaiah, between chap. xiii. 
and xxxix, are in general more discrepant from the first 
twelve chapters (acknowledged to be genuine), than some of 
those genuine chapters are from the alleged interpolated por- 
tions of the book. In other words ; Isaiah differs more from 
himself, than he does from others. These portions, moreover, 
which are said to be interpolated, are so widely distant from 
the idiom of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other Hebrew prophets 
during and after the exile ; they have so little of the later so- 
called degenerate Hebrew idiom in them ; that to my mind 
they present a very serious difficulty in the way of believing 
that they could have been written near the close of the exile, 
or even at the middle, or the beginning of it. So very differ- 
ent from the work before us are the productions of this period, 
in regard to diction and style, that even the Liberalists feel 
compelled to confess, that the Pseudo-Isaiah was a writer of 
rare talents at imitation of the ancients, and they even al- 
lege, that he has copied from the true Isaiah. I cannot here 
exemplify and confirm the position, that the resemblances 
between the confessedly genuine parts of Isaiah and the sus- 
pected parts of his book, are so many and so striking, that even 



104 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

De "Wette confesses that " they must arise from imitation or 
sonstwie, i. e. in some other way !" Einl. p. 288. To the 
some other way in which these resemblances arose, we may 
assent ; but not to the assertion that the writer in question was 
an imitator. I can only refer the reader, for an ample statement, 
to Kleinert's Aechtheit des Esaias, p. 220 — 279, and to Ha- 
vernick's Spezielle Einleit. Esai. p. 192 seq. Every discrim- 
inating reader well versed in the Hebrew must feel, as I 
think, that there-is indeed, in some respects, a notable differ- 
ence between the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah and 
the first part of his woi'k. It seems to me that candour will 
not — need not deny this. But, as I have intimated above, 
this difference is not so great, in my apprehension, as the dif- 
ference between the first twelve chapters of Isaiah and other 
acknowledged parts of his work between chap. xiii. and 
xxxix. Let any one compare the circle of imagery, the 
sources of metaphor and comparison, the historical examples 
of ancient times appealed to in both parts of the book, the 
absence of particular visions and symbolical actions in both, 
the insertion of triumphant lyrical songs, and the like, and 
he cannot refuse to recognize most striking similarities ; 
see Havernick ut sup. p. 191. ' They that be for the anti- 
quity of the alleged adscititious portions of the book, are more 
than they that be against it.' I am persuaded, that the Neol- 
ogists have evidently the worst of the argument on this 
ground ; and this is a ground which they are prone to con- 
sider as one of their choice positions for defence. 

(3) What example is there, among all the .prophets, of a 
book so patched up by putting together six different authors, 
five of them without any names ? Who did this ? Where, 
when, was it done ? If parts of the book are so late as 
is alleged, why have we no hint about its compilation, no 
certain internal evidence of it ? How can we account for it 
that all the minor prophets, even Obadiah with his one chap- 
ter, should be kept separate and distinct, and this even down 
to the end of the prophetic period, and yet Isaiah be made up 
by undistinguished fragments and amalgamations? These 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 105 

surely are serious difficulties ; and they have not yet been 
satisfactorily met. 

(4) In numerous places of chap, xli — xlviii, the prophet 
appeals to his own predictions concerning Babylon's fall, as ut- 
tered long before the time of fulfilment. Even Rosenmueller 
confesses (iii. p. 5, 6), that 'the writer, who lived near the 
close of the Babylonish exile, has assumed the personage of 
some ancient prophet.' This same prophet adverts to local- 
ities and nations, to which it would be very strange for a Jew 
in exile to advert to. E. g. 41: 9, where he speaks of Israel 
as being " taken from the ends of the earth," i. e. Ur of the 
Chaldees ; which would do well in case he was in Palestine, 
but be quite incongruous if he were in Cbaldaea. As to na- 
tions; Egypt, the land of Sinim (49: 12) i. e. probably the 
Pelusiotes, the appeal to offerings of swine (65: 4) which 
were made in Egypt but not in Babylon, the frequent appeals 
and addresses to Jerusalem and the towns of Palestine, all 
seem to betoken the presence of the writer in the holy land, 
and his familiarity with objects there and in the neighbor- 
hood. Then the historical relations are to be added to these. 
Egypt and Aethiopia are joined, and also the Sabaeans ; 
45: 14. In 41: 11, 12, the active and assailing enemies of 
those addressed are mentioned ; but who were they, during 
the exile ? In 52: 4, the writer adverts to the past captivi- 
ties of the Jews, and mentions only those of Egypt and As- 
syria. How could he omit that of Babylon, if it had taken 
place ? In Isa. 66: 19, the Jewish exiles are represented as 
being gathered only from countries connected with Egyptian 
or Assyrian sway. These things have not been satisfactori- 
ly explained by the recent liberal critics. I am not aware 
how they can be. 

(5) In chap, xl — xlvii, are very many passages which are 
addressed to a people under the influence of idols, and who 
practice heathen rites ; and they are reproved for not pre- 
senting the offerings due to God. How could this be, while 
the Jews were in exile ? They served no idols then and 
there ; and how could they be reproved for not presenting 



106 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

offerings there, which could be lawfully presented nowhere 
but at the temple in Jerusalem ? Besides, the people ad- 
dressed are represented as seeking foreign alliances. Could 
the Jews in exile do this ? Chap. 66: 8, 4, describes the Jews 
as presenting hypocritical oblations and sacrifices. How, 
where, when, — in the land of Chaldaea ? Even Ewald feels 
obliged to concede (in Es. II. p. 409 seq.), that he finds no 
marks of the author's being in Babylonia, but the contrary. 

(6) It seems to be evident, that the latter part of Isaiah is 
quoted or imitated by prophets who lived before the exile ; 
comp. Nah. 1: 15 and Isa. 52: 1, 7. See also Nah. 3: 7 and 
Isa. 51: 19. . Nah. 3: 4, 5 and Isa. 47: 5, 9. So Habakkuk in 
2: 18, 19, comp. with Isa. 44: 9 — 20. In Zephaniah are sev- 
eral passages of the same tenor. Jeremiah has strowed pas- 
sages through his whole book, which lean upon the latter 
part of Isaiah ; particularly in chap. 1. li, which, one might 
almost say, are made up of extracts from this prophet ; see 
Havern. Einl. p. 180. Finally, 2 Chron. 32: 32, not merely 
refers for authority, as to the history of Hezekiah, to the Vis- 
ion of Isaiah (dhap. xxxvi — xxxix.), but also to an old book, 
the Hook of the Kings of Judah and Israel, which had drawn 
from the same source ; see Ha v. II. 1. p. 198 seq. At all 
events, when the author of Chronicles wrote, the book of 
Isaiah was a definite and well known book. 

It were easy to add to these evidences of earlier composi- 
tion — and of composition in the holy land. But my limits 
forbid. I would merely repeat, in the way of comment, 
what I said at the outset, viz. that the recent opinions re- 
specting adscititious parts of Isaiah, are embarrassed by very 
serious difficulties, which have not yet been satisfactorily met. 

As to all the objections made to the early composition of 
the alleged Pseudo-Isaiah, on the ground that prediction, so 
long before hand as the time of Isaiah the Son of Amoz, is 
an impossibility, I have only to say, that this is assumption 
and not argument — it is simply petitio principii. Even if, 
with most of the neological critics, we put off the composi- 
tion of that portion of the book to a period little before the 



§ 4. LITERATtJRE OF THE HEBREWS. 107 

exile, it is still prediction ; for how could any one foresee 
what Cyrus would do, either as to the destruction of Baby- 
lon, or the liberation of the Jews ? But when the composi- 
tion of these parts of Isaiah is brought down very near to 
the time of the events described, our sharp-sighted critics say, 
that a shrewd political observer might easily conjecture what 
would take place ; as Burke foretold what would follow in 
the train of the French revolution. It happened, as they 
suggest, that he made a lucky guess. But what if it had 
turned out, that the Babylonians had been victors, in the con- 
test with Cyrus ? ' "Why then (as they intimate) the Pseudo- 
Isaiah would have stood in no repute, and his work would 
never have come down to us.' 

In respect to this, and all that is like it, I have only to say, 
that it is not critical argument, but a mere result of the a 
priori assumption, that prediction is an impossibility. 

An impartial view of the subject before us, however, 
obliges us to say, that the recent critics who contend for a 
Pseudo- Isaiah, are not wholly destitute of reasons, some of 
which, to say the least, are quite specious. They allege, 
(1) That the later writer does not so much describe an exile 
which is to be, as one which is. In this state, he thinks, and 
feels, and speaks. He describes desolations in Judea and in 
Edom, which had already taken place ; e. g. in chap, lxiii. 
lxiv, and elsewhere. He dwells on these things ; repeats 
them ; goes into minute particulars which savour of the his- 
torical rather than of the prophetical. All this is contrary to 
the genius of any prophecy, which for a long time precedes 
the events described. 

(2) The mention by name of Cyrus (44: 28. 45: 1), is 
without parallel. The fact of such a mention shows, that 
Cyrus was already on the throne. 

(3) Predictions so long before hand as the time of Isaiah, 
when Babylon was a mere provincial and tributary kingdom 
belonging to the Assyrian domain, could be of no interest to 
the then living generation. Neither Isaiah nor they knew 
or cared anything about Babylon. It looks like mere sooth- 



108 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

saying or fortune-telling, to utter such predictions at such a 
period. And above all, how could Isaiah himself say so 
much about deliverance from exile, and dwell so long and 
minutely upon it, when he has said nothing of the Jews being 
carried away into captivity, nor uttered any threats of this 
nature ? 

(4) The whole strain is hortatory, and addressed (in this 
shape) to those then living in exile. The writer addresses 
them as having present duties to do ; prays for them as al- 
ready in distress and danger ; and in fact adjusts his whole 
discourse as if it were an epistle to the exiles. 

(5) The writer, in chap, xl — xlvii, appeals to ancient pro- 
phecy respecting the Babylonish exile. In Isaiah's time, 
who was there that had already written such predictions ? 

(6) Why does not Jeremiah, when he predicts the return 
from exile (xxix. xxx. al.), appeal to the predictions of 
Isaiah, in the way of confirmation, in case they already ex- 
isted ? 

These are the main arguments on which they rely, with 
the exception of those drawn from the impossibility of mira- 
cles, and from the style and manner of the alleged adscititious 
parts. A few remarks only can be made here respecting them. 

As to No. 2, which respects the mention of Cyrus by name, 
the passage in 1 King 13: 2 is a parallel case. Agag, in Num. 
24: 7, seems to be another. Besides, the name Cyrus is, in 
all probability, like that of Pharaoh, a mere nomen dignita- 
tis, applicable to more than one king. The proper name of Cy- 
rus appears to have been Agradates. In case the matter is so 
understood, nothing more particular than a reference to a Per- 
sian king is contained in the prediction. In respect to No. 3, it 
cannot be said with truth, that Isaiah and his contemporaries 
knew nothing of Babylon, and felt no interest to know any 
thing about it, after one reads Isa. xxxix, which contains 
an explicit prediction, that the descendants of Hezekiah 
should be carried to Babylon and be eunuchs in the palace 
there. In Micah 4: 9, 10, is a prediction of the same tenor. 
Of course this involves the destiny of the nation, (Micah ex- 



§ 4. LITERATURE OP THE HEBREWS. 109 

press ly applies it to the nation), as well as of its king. Is 
not this "saying something" about being carried into exile? 
And does not the deliverance which follows come in its pro- 
per place ? 

The hortatory strain, objected to the early composition in 
No. 4, would be convincing, if we could show that the spirit 
of prophecy could not anticipate future circumstances. Most 
of the exhortations are of such a nature as to constitute preach- 
ing applicable to any or all periods, in those ancient times. 
The appeal to ancient prophecy (No. 5), does not necessarily 
involve anything more ancient than what Isaiah himself had 
uttered, or at any rate Micah. InMicah 4: 9, 10, the Baby- 
lonish captivity is very plainly and expressly predicted ; 
and Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah. In respect to No. 
6, Jeremiah no more appeals to Micah than he does to Isaiah. 
The aryumentum ex silentio has little force indeed, in a case of 
this nature. 

Finally, I deem it proper to add, that the whole dispute in 
respect to the Pseudo-Isaiah, is after all a matter of less im- 
portance, in a theological point of view, than many have 
deemed it to be. If real prophets are allowed to have writ- 
ten the alleged adscititious parts of the book, then the author- 
ity of the book is not impinged, at any rate is not impugned. 
But most of the recent critics refuse to admit the existence 
of such men, i. e. to admit them as being properly inspired 
men. But such as do admit of the real prophetic origin of the 
adscititious part (so called) may ask : If other prophetic works 
are of divine authority, why are not these also ? It is not pre- 
tended, even by the better class of neological critics, that these 
parts of Isaiah Avere written post eventum. If written before, 
they are predictions. Merely as a theologian, then, I should 
have little to object to the compound nature of the book before 
us. It is in fact of little or no theological or doctrinal importance 
which way this question is decided. But as a critic, I have 
serious doubts whether recent criticism has yet made its way 
dear. There are obstacles in its path, which it seems 
rather to leap over than to remove. 
10 



110 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

In the meantime, it must be confessed that there are some 
obstacles in the way of other and the older critics. The gra- 
phic description of desolations in Edom and Judea, which is 
contained in chap, lxiii. lxiv, seems to plead strongly in fa- 
vour of the idea, that those desolations had actually taken 
place. Above all, the difficulty of supposing a deep and pre- 
sent interest, which the Isaiah of Hezekiah's reign had, or 
could well have, in the return from the Babylonish exile 
when he has not anywhere dwelt at length upon the occur- 
rence of being carried into exile ; and the unparalleled length 
and particularity of the descriptions or predictions respecting 
this return ; do constitute difficulties, it must be confessed, in 
the way of the older exegesis, which are entitled to serious 
consideration. Such, it must be conceded also, is not the man- 
ner of most prophets, in regard to mere civil or political 
events. Things of present interest and of impending danger, 
are for the most part before them, and are the subjects of 
prophecy. And if Isa. xl — lxvi. can be viewed as coming 
from the pen of a prophet in exile, not long before the return 
from it, its graphic descriptions and its many developments of 
deep feeling seem to be more naturally and easily account- 
ed for. Is it not possible, that another prophet, who also 
bore the name of Isaiah, lived and wrote at this period ? I 
must confess that. I have sometimes suspected this to be the 
case. Most knots which we must now cut, would easily be 
untied by such a solution. The principal objection to it is, 
that history has not said anything of such a man ; and it is 
difficult even to suppose that the name of such a writer, at so 
.late a period, could be covered with entire darkness. Did 
we know that such a person lived and wrote, we might call 
him Deutero-Isaiah, but surely not (as recent critics do) 
Pseudo-Isaiah. The mistake of redactors in later ages, (in 
case there were two prophets who both bore the name of 
Isaiah), in arranging and combining their works together, and 
placing them under one category, might be very easily ac- 
counted for, in such a case. I should feel some inclination to 
admit this theory, as the most easy and ready solution of the 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. Ill 

difficulties, if it could only be rendered probable, that such a 
person as the Deutero- Isaiah could have lived, and written 
such a piece of composition as Isa. xl — lxvi, and yet not have 
been conspicuous in Jewish history. The lack of any notice 
of such a writer, is certainly one of the unaccountable things. 

One general remark, which in my own view is of great im- 
portance in regard to the whole matter before us, I must 
make before I quit the subject. It is only when chaps, xl — 
lxvi. are viewed in the light of a great Messianic develop- 
ment — a series of predictions respecting the person, the work, 
and the kingdom of Christ- — that the earnestness, the pro- 
tracted length, the fulness, the deep feeling, the holy enthu- 
-siasm, the glowing metaphors and similies, and the rich and 
varied exhibitions of peace and prosperity, can well be ac- 
counted for. The writer, in taking such a stand-point, uses 
the exile and the return from it as the basis of his compari- 
sons and analogies. It was a rich and deeply interesting 
source, from which he might draw them. Any other solution 
of the whole phenomena is, to my mind at least, meagre and 
unsatisfactory. On no other ground can I account for it, that 
Isaiah so long beforehand should have dwelt on an exile and 
a return from it, which were more than a century distant from 
him and his contemporaries. 

In regard to the book of Joxah, it purports to be the work 
of Jonah the son of Amittai (Jonah 1:1); and in 2 Kings 14: 
25, we have an account of Jonah the prophet, of Gath He- 
pher, a town in the district of Zebuluu (comp. Josh. 19: 18). 
Of this latter personage it appears, that he lived and proph- 
esied during the reign of Jeroboam II, king of Israel, (825 — 
784 B. C.) ; of course, at the time when the Assyrian power 
was just beginning to show its strength in western Asia, and 
might be dreaded by the Israelites. To him is attributed, by 
Hitzig and others, the prophecy against Moab in Isa. xv. xvi. 
And inasmuch as Isaiah himself appears to assign this por- 
tion of his book to some other and older prophet than himself 
(Isa. 16: 14), no very urgent objections against this view of 
the subject seem to press upon us ; although I do not deem it 
necessary. 



112 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

As to the prophecy contained in the book entitled Jonah, 
(but little indeed of the book is prediction), there has been 
an endless diversity of opinion among modern and recent com- 
mentators in regard to the matter and manner of this work. 
It is clear from Tobit 14: 8. 3 Mace. 6: 8, and from Josephus' 
Antiq. IX. 10. 2, that the ancient Jews regarded the whole 
book as a narrative of facts. It seems moreover very much 
as if the Saviour had given his sanction to it as such ; Matt. 
12: 40 seq. 16: 4. Luke 11: 80. Most of the Christian fa- 
thers have done the same; and the great body of the older 
modern commentators have inclined to follow in the same 
path. But not so with all. In recent times, the Liberals, 
almost to a man, reject the simple historical exposition of the 
book at large ; and not a few even of those who are more 
strict in sentiment, have felt compelled to regai'd it as an al- 
legory or parable. 

The difficulties alleged to be connected with the book, are 
very numerous. First, the mission itself to a very distant 
barbarian city, the mistress of the eastern world, buried in 
luxury and idolatry, and looking contemptuously on all for- 
eigners — a mission totally destitute of anything analogous 
among all the Hebrew prophets — is thought to be a serious 
obstacle to the historical exposition. Then comes a host of 
other difficulties. The sudden and unexpected penitence of 
the Ninevites, it is said, is incredible. More credible would 
the story have been, if it had represented them as taking Jo- 
nah for a raving maniac. The book of Kings (2 Kings 14: 
25 seq.), which gives us some notices of Jonah, takes no no- 
tice of such an event. Jonah, a prophet too, is represented 
as expecting to fly from the presence of the Lord, by going 
in a ship to Tarshish ! When the lot falls upon Jonah, as the 
cause of the tempest which threatened the safety of all em- 
barked, with the same indifference which before had made 
him sleep quietly in the hold of the ship amidst the agitations 
of the storm, he proposes to be cast overboard. He is swal- 
lowed by a whale ; and after being three days in his belly, 
he is vomited up upon the dry land. The second admoni- 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 113 

tion to go to Nineveh is obeyed. The consequences of this 
mission have already been adverted to. Then comes the re- 
pining indignation of the prophet, because Nineveh was not 
actually destroyed. A gourd comes up in a single night, and 
grows to such a size as to shelter Jonah from the burning 
heat, to which he was exposed in his watch-station. But 
the next day, a worm eats it at the root, and it immediately 
withers. Jonah then wishes to die, rather than to see his 
prophecy unfulfilled. These circumstances, it is averred with 
the greatest confidence, are all of them either very improba- 
ble or actually impossible. 

So they must have been regarded, it would seem, by many 
interpreters of the book ; for all manner of devices have been 
resorted to, in order to make out some meaning for it that 
would comport with facts which the interpreter deemed prob- 
able or possible. 

The principal difficulty is with the matter of being swal- 
lowed up by the fish or whale. A whale, it is said, has not 
a gullet large enough to receive a man. Then, it is asked, 
how could Jonah live in his interior ? How could such a 
monster approach the land near enough to throw him upon 
it ? These and the like questions have been discussed, until 
it would seem that not much more remains to be said, or even 
invented. 

Of the Eabbinical conceits about- Jonah, I need say no 
more than to mention, that one of them is, that the whale 
swam round the whole continent of Africa in the three days 
during which Jonah was within him ; that he came back by 
the way of the Red Sea ; and that he went through the sub- 
terranean passage from that sea to the Mediterranean, and 
thus brought Jonah safe to his home again. According to 
some of the Babbies, Jonah had a not uncomfortable berth 
for such a long and rapid voyage ; and, looking through the 
whale's eyes, he saw a great many wonders of the deep. Be- 
sides this, he performed many devotional exercises. Even 
Josephus (Antiq. IX. 10. 2) makes the whale to throw up the 
prophet upon the shores of the Euxine. Others have inven- 
10* 



114 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

ted a more facile solution of the whole difficulty. The whale 
(JVjJ, lit. fish) is turned into a boat with aivhale painted on its 
stem or bow ; or it may be a boat of the whalers, as we speak 
of a whale boat. Even Godfrey Less has broached such an 
exegesis ; Verm. Schrift. p. 161. So Jonah, after three days 
tossing, is represented as being driven to the land, and thrown 
upon it by the waves. But the difficulty here is, that the 
account of Jonah (1: 17) states, that the Lord had prepared 
felha W , a great fish, to swallow up the prophet ; where the 
epithet great has of course a very appropriate meaning. But 
how is it with a great boat ? Then again, the vomiting (xj^l) 
upon the land — appropriate enough to the great fish, but how 
the boat vomited out Jonah, looks rather problematical. Oth- 
ers, therefore, not liking these explanations of the narration, 
say, that Jonah when thrown overboard found a dead fish, on 
which he got a station, and was thrown, at last, upon the land 
unharmed. But still, the sioallowing up of Jonah, and the 
vomiting of him out, are lost sight of even in this exegesis. 
To remedy this, ingenuity has contrived to make Jonah cut 
a hole in the fish, so that he could lodge in his interior ; and 
from this he came out, when cast upon the land. But even 
here, Jonah seems rather to manage the fish, than to be man- 
aged by him. The view attributed to the famous Von der 
Hardt, who wrote several volumes upon Jonah, viz., that Jo- 
nah put up a tavern which had the sign of a whale, is closely 
allied to this. 

Futile, not to say ridiculous, attempts are all these and the 
like, to do away the force of a narration, which plainly sa- 
vours of the miraculous. Not but that the whole matter, in 
respect to the fish, might be shown to be a natural possibility. 
The Cam's Carcharias, common in the Mediterranean, can 
surely swallow a man, for it has done so ; and so can some 
other fishes. That a man should preserve life for a while in 
the stomach of a fish, under certain circumstances, is no im- 
possibility. Living reptiles often spend years in the human 
stomach ; some of them, moreover, are such as need air for 
respiration, (as indeed what living and breathing creature does 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 115 

not ?) As to throwing up Jonah upon the land, there are places 
enough of deep water up to the very edge of the sea-shore, 
where this might be done by a large fish. The objection that 
the stomach of the fish must have dissolved and digested Jonah, 
is of no weight ; for every one acquainted with physiology 
knows, that living flesh does not digest in the least in the 
stomach. The gastric juice has no power over it. And last 
but not least — the God who meant to punish, but not to de- 
stroy, Jonah, could arrange all these circumstances, and also 
preserve his life, in such a way as is stated in the narration. 
The same God could cause the fish to throw him out of his 
stomach ; the Bible atfirms that he did ; Jon. 2: 10. 

So would I say, moreover, of the gourd, and its withering, 
although the latter circumstance is pressed by no special dif- 
ficulty. Its growth, however, must be supernatural. The 
panic, the fast, and the penitence of the Ninevites, are doubt- 
less all circumstances extraordinary and without a parallel in 
sacred history. Yet surely they cannot be deemed impossi- 
bilities. The mission of Jonah to a distant heathen country, 
in his day scarcely known among the Jews, and not yet hav- 
ing made any incursion upon Palestine, is undoubtedly one 
of the most serious difficulties that the book presents. The 
mission of a man who had such a temper as Jonah, to execute 
a commission so grave, stands next to this. And then — what 
was the object ? What was achieved ? "What had the Jews 
to do, at that time, with the Ninevites ? It is easy to ask 
many questions of this kind ; but it is not so easy to answer 
them satisfactorily. The book itself presents us with no key 
to unlock these mysteries. 

I cannot much wonder, therefore, that allegory or parable 
has been resorted to by so many interpreters (and of different 
sentiments too in theology), in order to explain the book. 
Jonah, they say, designed to teach the Hebrew nation to feel 
more liberally towards the heathen ; to show them that even 
the latter were more susceptible of moral impression than hai*- 
dened Jews ; and to impress them with the idea that God 
was the common Father of all men — of the Gentiles as well 



116 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

as of the Jews. He wrote this allegory, as they aver, in order 
to accomplish this end ; just as the Saviour uttered the para- 
ble of the good Samaritan, and of the rich man and Lazarus, 
or of the sower, in order to illustrate and confirm certain mo- 
ral truths. In itself this exhibits nothing impossible or even 
improbable. Yet the want of all intimations of this nature in 
the book itself, is somewhat of an objection against this mode of 
exegesis ; although it has been adopted, for substance, by such 
men as J. D. Michaelis, Herder, Eichhorn, Staudlin, Meyer, 
Mueller, Niemeyer, and others. In the Gospels, and generally 
in the prophets, the context gives us a key to the allegory or the 
parable. I am constrained also to ask : Can what the Saviour 
says about Jonah and the Ninevites, be reconciled with the 
idea that the book is only an allegory ? The first spontane- 
ous prompting of the mind seems to be an answer in the neg- 
ative. Yet it is asked : Do we not every day refer to the 
Good Samaritan, and to the Prodigal Son, in the same way 
as if they were real historical personages ? And in fact one 
cannot deny this ; but still there is this difference between the 
two cases, viz., that in the Gospels the nature of the allegory 
is palpable. However, at all events, this method of interpre- 
tation is much preferable to one lately come in vogue, through 
Goldhorn, Gesenius, De Wette, and Knobel, viz. that the 
book has only a few facts at the basis, simple and credible ; 
while all the rest is a mythic romance — a narrative made out 
of floating popular stories. Jonah, they say, was a prophet. 
He uttered oracular threats against Nineveh. He made a 
voyage to sea ; was shipwrecked ; narrowly escaped the 
sharks ; returned to his prophetic duty ; but was indignant 
that his first predictions had not been fulfilled, and therefore 
wished for death, through fear of disgrace. So much they 
allow to be fact. Then as to the mythic part, it comes, as 
they think, from the story among the Greeks, that Hercules, 
at Sigeum, rescued Hesione, the daughter of Laomedon king 
of Troy, from the jaws of the sea-monster to which she was 
devoted. In order to do this, he sprang himself into the 
monster's jaws, was swallowed down, and there he fought 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 117 

three days and nights in his belly, destroyed him, and came 
out alive with only the loss of his hair, which had been burned 
up by the heat within ; Diod. Sic. VI. 42. Ovid Met. XI. 
211 seq. Tzetzes ad Lycoph. Cassand. 33. This myth, as some 
of the recent critics suppose, was combined with another, the 
scene of which is at the shore of Joppa. There Perseus 
rescued from a sea-monster Andromeda, the daughter of king 
Cepheus ; and Pliny (Hist. Nat. V. 14) and Jerome (Comm. 
in Jon. I. 3) tell us, that the people of that place wei'e accus- 
tomed to show to strangers the rock where Andromeda was 
chained, and the huge bones of the sea-monster ; [whales' bones 
no doubt]. Both of these fables are united, and forthwith 
out comes the myth of Jonah. So even Rosenmueller. To 
this I have only to say : 

" Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam 
Jungei-e si velit, et varias inducere plumas 
Undique collatis membris ; ut turpiter atrum 
Desinat in piscem mulier formosa superne ; 
Spectatum admissi, risum teneatis amici ?"* 

What others may do, who have more power over their 
risibles than I, is not for me to say. But for myself, I cannot 
do otherwise than Horace supposes his friends would do, 
when looking at the strange production of the painter whom 
he describes. Winer, (not restrained most surely by any 
orthodox notions from admitting neological exegesis), says, in 
respect to this mythical explanation : " It always must appear 
very improbable, that a Hebrew writer would have found any 
occasion of working over the materials of a Philistine Myth ;" 
Bib. Lex. art. Jonas. It is even worse than Horace's supposed 
picture ; and, so we may emphatically ask : Risum teneatis, 
amici? How it is possible thus to overlook the very genius 
of the Hebrews, and the nature and design of the sacred books, 

* In English thus : i: If a painter should undertake to join a horse's 
neck to a human head, and to cover with variegated feathers the limbs 
collected from all quarters ; so that a woman beautiful in the upper part 
should disgustingly end in a black fish ; if admitted to such a sight, my 
friends, could you keep yourselves from laughing ?" Ars Poet. 1 — 5. 



118 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

and to suppose that the book of Jonah was written with such 
views, and admitted to a place in the sacred canon — I leave 
for those to explain, who have done the deed of making up 
the monstrous compound. I wash my hands of such high 
treason against the fundamental laws of sacred criticism. 

Doubtless the question will be put by the reader : And 
what then, after such remarks on the exegesis of others — what 
do you yourself regard as the object of the book of Jonah ? 
"What estimate do you put on the narration ? So far as I am 
able, I am willing to give an answer ; but it must be brief, 
after dwelling so long upon this book. 

"When the Scribes and Pharisees said to Christ : u Master, 
we would see a sign from thee, he told them that " the men 
of Nineveh should rise in judgment with that generation, and 
condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah," 
and then immediately added that a " greater than Jonah" was 
before them ; Matt. 12: 41. Luke 11: 32. Did he not mean 
now to compare one historical person and transaction with 
another ? If the Ninevites had been known and regarded 
only as an imaginary people — the offspring of allegory or ro- 
mance — there would be no difficulty in the case. The com- 
parison might then be placed on the same ground, on which 
we now place the conduct and person of any one actually 
living, when we compare him and his demeanor with the prod- 
igal son, or with the rich man and Lazarus. But the Ninevites 
are surely historical and veritable personages ; as much so as 
the queen of the South, who is joined with them in Matt. 12: 42 ; 
and the force of the Saviour's .appeal is greatly strengthened 
by the supposition that they are real personages. Not a 
word from Jesus to make us suspect that he regarded the mat- 
ter of the Ninevites in any other light than that of a real his- 
torical fact. Again, when Jesus says to the Pharisees and 
Sadducees, who were seeking a sign from heaven and tempt- 
ing him, that " no sign should be given them but the sign of 
the prophet Jonah," (Matt. 12: 39, 40. 16: 4), does he not 
compare the abode of Jonah for three days in the belly of the 
fish, with his own abode in the grave during the same period ? 



§ 4. LITERATURE OP THE HEBREWS. 119 

Matt. 12: 40. In other words : Does he not compare one 
historical fact with another ? It seems so. I know not how 
to throw off the impression which these passages make upon 
my mind. When Paul tells us, in Gal. 4: 24, that the nar- 
rative in Genesis concerning the son of Hagar and also of 
Sarah is allegorized, we know where we are and what to ex- 
pect. But is there anything in the passages just cited in re- 
spect to Jonah, which is adapted to make an impression that 
the story of Jonah and of the Ninevites is an allegory'? If 
there be, it has escaped my notice. 

The authority of Christ, then, seems to bind me to admit 
the facts as they are stated in the narrative of Jonah. They 
are indeed strange facts apparently ; but not therefore untrue. 
They plainly are not impossibilities ; although I acknowledge, 
very readily, that they are improbabilities, when compared 
with the common course of things. But are not all miracles 
of this character ? Or, putting aside (as I would) absolute 
miracles in regard to the things recognized by Christ with re- 
spect to Jonah, do they not border upon the marvellous ? 
Certainly they do ; but is all that the Old and New Testa- 
ment contains, which is of the like character, to be therefore 
rejected ? Neologists say : Yes. But the believer in divine 
revelation has no need to join in this answer. He may rank 
the occurrences in the book of Jonah with other occurrences 
related in the Scriptures, which are of a similar, i. e. of a mi- 
raculous, character. 

So much for facts. Now for the object of the book. This 
is indeed a problem of difficult solution. What can it be, 
unless it is to inculcate on the narrow-minded and bigoted 
Jews, (there were many such), the great truth, that God re- 
gards the humble and penitent everywhere with favor ; and 
that even the haughty, cruel, idolatrous and domineering 
heathen, in case they repent and humble themselves, become 
the subjects of his compassion and clemency, and are more 
acceptable than the haughty Jew, claiming descent from 
Abraham, but still the devoted slave of ritual observances 
and of his own evil passions ? 



320 § 4. LITERATURE OP THE HEBREWS. 

So much lies on the face of the book. There is no strange 
doctrine in it, therefore, but a plain and simple truth is il- 
lustrated and impressively taught by it. No difficulty, indeed, 
of a doctrinal nature attends the work. Whatever difficulty 
there is, it lies in the tenor of the narration. 

The only question over which darkness seems to a be- 
liever in miracles to hover, is, how Jonah alone, of all the 
Hebrew prophets, should be a missionary to the heathen ? 
And, (as connected with this), why was he sent, in the reign 
of Jeroboam II, to perform such a service ? My ignorance 
as to those things which would make out a satisfactory answer 
to these questions, can prove nothing against the facts them- 
selves. The time when he was sent, is indeed of no great 
importance. — These facts, moreover, are in themselves so 
far from being impossibilities, that, if admitted, they actually 
help to commend the prophetic dispensation to our feelings. 
"We are heartily glad, to see in what manner the divine Being 
recognizes the relation of all parts of our race to himself, and 
how willing he is to pardon the penitent. The unusual oc- 
currence of such an event as the mission of Jonah, and the 
apparent strangeness of the whole matter, are about the only 
things, in the end, that afford any serious doubts or difficul- 
ties to the believing mind. But I do not think these to be 
satisfactory or valid reasons for rejecting the book, or for 
turning it into an allegory or an ethnico-Judaic Myth. 

But I must not pursue any further the examination of these 
particular works. I return to our Chaldean period of pro- 
phecy, which extends down to the end of the exile ; I have 
only to add here, in regard to the prophetic order, that we 
have no history of any other than those prophets before 
mentioned. If there were men capable of writing such com- 
positions as the so-called Pseudo-Isaiah, then why, as has al- 
ready been suggested, is no mention made of them, no hint 
given respecting them ? Could men capable of writing in 
that manner, have lived in entire obscurity, while Zephaniah, 
Obadiah, Haggai, and Malachi, not far from the same period, 
are all distinctly recognized and well known ? At least this 



§ 4. LITERATURE OP THE HEBREWS. 121 

is something, which those, who feel so free on all occasions 
to doubt, may allow us the privilege of doubting, until the 
matter is better cleared up. 

In addition to the anonymous prophets already adverted to, 
(who are brought into being by recent criticism), another 
prophet, it seems, must be reckoned. Jer. 1. li. is thought by 
some critics of name, to have been composed about the mid- 
dle of the exile, and therefore not by Jeremiah the well-known 
prophet, who most probably must have been dead before that 
time. But the arguments drawn from the dictioii, in this 
case, surely make against this, if the whole of the resem- 
blances to Jeremiah are set over against the alleged discrepan- 
cies ; and there is no historical or critical necessity of sup- 
posing the chapters in question to be an interpolation. 

If we turn now from this brief survey of the prophets who 
lived and acted during the Chaldean period, to a moment's 
consideration of their characteristics of style, we shall be struck 
with the greatly altered tone of their compositions. The 
brevity, simplicity, majesty, and beauty of the golden age have 
in a large measure passed by. The dialect, though still He- 
brew in all its substantial elements,, differs much from that of 
Isaiah, Joel, and Nahum. Allegory, figure, symbol, and para- 
ble, are frequent almost everywhere ; and in fact they make 
up almost the whole of Ezekiel. Jeremiah has a great deal 
of historic matter, and is less inclined than his contemporary 
to allegory and symbol; but still the tenor of his style differs 
so exceedingly from that of the previous writers already named, 
that one can hardly persuade himself, that more time than is 
usually allowed did not elapse between the Assyrian and the 
Chaldean periods of prophetic composition. As to pathos, 
tenderness, deep felt grief on account of the desolations of Ju- 
dea, and still more on account of its wickedness, there is no- 
thing in the writers of any age which exceeds some parts of 
Jeremiah. 

Another circumstance should be noted. Instead of em- 
ploying poetry as the vehicle of instruction, which for the most 
part the prophets of the golden age did, the compositions dur- 
11 



122 § 4. LITERATLTtE OF THE HEBREWS. 

ing the period in question were generally in prose ; but not 
unfrequently in a kind of measured prose. Habakkuk is in- 
deed an exception to this, as well as to the style in general of 
his times. How now shall we class Isa. xl — lxvi. with the 
poetry of this Chaldean period, when the former consists of 
some of the most symmetrical poetry to be found in all the 
Hebrew Scriptures ? If the so-called Pseudo-Isaiah be indeed 
of later composition, it stands out as a singular phenomenon 
amidst the other prophetic remains of that age. A writer of 
that day, on a theme so interesting as that which is presented 
in Isa. xl — lxvi, who could with such wonderful success trans- 
port himself into the midst of the golden age and adopt its 
general manner, imagery, and diction, one would be prone to 
think must have had some memorial left of him. 

Knobel alleges, that the prophets of the Chaldean period 
exhibit more attachment to the ritual Lav.-, than those of the 
preceding era. What little foundation there is for this remark, 
seems to me to rest merely on the fact, that Jeremiah and 
Ezekiel were both priests as well as prophets. How natural 
then that they should look somewhat more to the violated 
ritual, as well as to the moral law ! 

We have no history of the Jews during their exile, except- 
ing the hints in Jeremiah and Ezekiel respecting them. But 
these do not disclose to us any particular's respecting any true 
prophets of the Lord, if such there were among them. In 
Jer. xxix. we have an account of several/afce prophets among 
the exiles, by the name of Ahab, Zedekiah, and Shemaiah. 
The two former were roasted by the king of Babylon in the 
fire (Jer. 29: 22), probably because they excited their coun- 
trymen to uneasiness in their exile, by false promises made to 
them. Jeremiah strongly denounces these false prophets ; 
and in a similar manner does Ezekiel denounce men of the 
same class, who were flattering the exiles with deceitful pro- 
mises ; Ezek. 13: 1 — 16. In like manner the false shepherds 
of Israel, (probably false prophets, see on p. 91 above), are 
severely rebuked in Ezek. xxxiv. May we not, then, in the 
absence of direct testimony, assume as altogether probable 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 123 

the continued existence of true prophets among the Hebrews 
in their exile ? False coin does not usually make its appear- 
ance where there is no tone coin. The analogy of former and 
of subsequent periods would seem to plead in favour of the 
position, that among the exiles in Babylon were more or less 
of true prophetical teachers. The people were humbled by 
this exile. They grew better under their chastisements. 
Many of them sighed for a return to Palestine, and a renewal 
of their religious state and privileges. And when they did 
return from exile, in consequence of the proclamation by Cy- 
rus who gave them liberty, they had such men for leaders 
as Zerubbabel and Jeshua the high-priest; also the prophets 
Zechariah and Haggai ; Ezra 5: 1. These, and in the sequel 
Malachi, contributed important aid in re-establishing the Jew- 
ish commonwealth and worship. "We can hardly suppose, 
therefore, that the Jews were at any time during their exile 
entirely destitute of true prophets, although we have no ex- 
plicit account of such persons among them. 

In 536 B. C. Cyrus attained to the sole regency of the 
Medo-Persian empire, and during the same year he published 
his edict, permitting and even exhorting the Jews to go up to 
Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. About 70,000 persons re- 
turned to Palestine (Ez. 2: 66. Neh. 7: 66 seq.), the same 
year, in consequence of this edict, having Zerubbabel a de- 
scendant of David as their civil head, and Jeshua as their 
high priest. Great trouble and hindrance were soon given to 
the Jews, by their heathen and envious neighbours ; so that 
the re-building of the temple and city was often interrupted 
and long delayed. For the following seventy-five years we 
have no particular account of their religious state, and only a 
few notices of their civil condition. "Who were their pro- 
phets, if prophets they had, excepting Haggai and Zechariah 
(Ezra 5: 1), we know not. After Darius Hystaspis had 
come to the throne of Persia (521 B. C), i. e. some fifteen 
or more years after the edict of Cyrus, those prophets con- 
tributed much in stirring up the Jews to go on with their 
temple-building. In the sixth year of Darius, (516 B. C), 



124 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

was this great undertaking finished. From that time down to 
the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus 
(457 B. C. — or as some maintain, 4&)), we have no historic 
notices in the Jewish Scriptures of the state of the nation. In 
the year just named, Ezra, "a ready scribe in the Law of 
Moses, which the Lord God had given," came up to Jerusa- 
lem from Babylon, by leave of the Persian king, and brought 
with him between two and three thousand of the exiles ; Ez- 
ra vii. viii. Here Ezra employed himself for several years in 
the accomplishment of a reformation both in worship and in 
morals ; for both of these had greatly degenerated after the 
death of Zerubbabel and Jeshua. In about ten years, Nehe- 
miah, the cup-bearer of Artaxerxes, by leave of this king 
paid a visit to Palestine, and found the walls of Jerusalem in 
a ruinous state. These he repaired, and being made gov- 
ernor (Tirshatha) of the place, he resided there some twelve 
years (Neh. 6: 14), and not only did he fortify the city, but 
contributed greatly to bring everything both civil and religious 
into a state of order and regularity. In this he was much as- 
sisted by Ezra (Neh. viii.), who took the lead in all religious 
matters. After twelve years he returned to Persia, accord- 
ing to agreement, but within a few days he obtained leave to 
go back to Palestine ; Neh. 13: 6. There he spent the rest 
of his life. But of his further actions, excepting for a short 
period after his return, Ave have no account, and the history 
of the Jews after the Babylonish exile, ends with the doings 
of Nehemiah, i. e. about 434 B. C. 

It is said of Nehemiah (Neh. 6: 7), that he had appointed 
prophets to preach in Jerusalem. Who these were, is not said, 
in the passage to which reference has been made. But that 
Malachi was among them, scarcely admits of a doubt. That 
he was later than Haggai and Zechariah, and lived after the 
building of the temple Avas completed, is quite manifest to any 
one Avho will take pains to consult and compare the following 
passages; viz. as to completion of the temple, Mai. 1: 10. 3: 
1, 10 ; as to duties neglected by priests and Levites, comp. 
Mai. 1: 6. 2: 1, 8, 9 with Neh. 13: 10, 11, 28—30 ; as to the 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 125 

people's withholding gifts for the temple, comp. Mai. 3: 8 — 10 
with Neh. 13: 10, 12, 41 ; as to marriage with foreigners, 
comp. Mai. 2: 10 — 16 with Neh. 13: 23 seq. ; as to oppression 
of the poor, comp. Mai. 3. 5 with Neh. v. It would seem 
then, that Malachi flourished about 440 B. C. When he died, 
we know not ; but it is conceded on all hands, that he closed 
the series of that very extraordinary class of men, the He- 
brew prophets. 

We have, then, after the return from exile, only three 
prophets whose names and works are known to us. These 
are Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi. But we find kindred 
spirits in Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah ; and spe- 
cially does it seem to me that Ezra had much to do with the 
republication, arrangement, and completion of the Jewish 
Canon. But of this, more in the sequel. 

I have as yet made no mention of Daniel, because he was 
not a prophet among the people of Palestine, although born 
in that land. He was very young at the time when Nebu- 
chadnezzar came up against Jerusalem (606 B. C), and was 
carried away to Babylon as a hostage, by the king ; Dan. 1: 
1^6. Most probably he was the son of a nobleman, or per- 
haps of the royal family. We have an account of him in the 
third year of Cyrus (534 B. G), so that he must have lived 
to the age of eighty or ninety years ; Dan. 10: 1. He might 
be placed among the prophets of the third or Chaldean pe- 
riod ; for some of his visions were before the close of the 
Babylonish monarchy ; yet some of them, also, were after the 
edict of liberation to the Jews was issued by Cyrus. Recent 
criticism has ascribed his book to some writer in the time of 
the Maccabees ; and some have even denied, that any such 
distinguished person as Daniel lived at the Babylonish court 
and held an office there. The writer of the book, it is aver- 
red, has merely feigned such a character, in order that he 
might compose a work suited to console the Jews who were 
suffering under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, as 
the more ancient Jews had done under their Babylonish op- 
11* 



126 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

pressors. Of course, the book of Daniel is ranked, by critics 
of this class, as last of all in the prophetic Scriptures. 

It would be inconsistent with my present object, to turn 
aside here, in order to vindicate the genuineness of the book 
of Daniel. It has found an able advocate in the work of 
Hengstenberg on its authenticity,- Authentie des Daniel, 
1831 ; and also in Havernick's recent Einleit. ins Alt. Testa- 
ment. Nearly all the arguments employed to disprove its 
genuineness, have their basis more or less directly in the as- 
sumption, that miraculous events are impossibilities. Of 
course, all the extraordinary occurrences related in the book 
of Daniel, and all the graphic predictions of events, are, un- 
der the guidance of this assumption, stricken from the list of 
probabilities, and even of possibilities. All that is said of An- 
tiochus Epiphanes and other Syrian and Grecian kings, is 
prophetia post eventum, i. e. real narration of events past, 
rather than prediction of events to come. Beyond the objec- 
tions which are founded entirely on these assumptions, there 
is little, as it seems to me, to convince an enlightened and 
well-balanced critical reader, that the book is supposititious. 
After examining the subject with much attention, I must con- 
fess myself to be far frorn believing that the objections to the 
authenticity of the book can maintain their stand, before the 
bar of enlightened and truly liberal criticism. 

But be this as it may, it matters but little to the main ob- 
ject of my present Avork. All agree, that the book of Daniel 
was written a considerable time before the Christian era ; 
and none can well deny that our Saviour has expressly re- 
cognized it, in Mark 13: 14. Matt. 24, 15, as a book of pro- 
phecy. Josephus bestows upon it more commendations, than 
upon any book of the Old Testament ; Antiq. Lib. x. I am 
aware how much has been said, on account of the Jewish 
classification of the book in question among the Hagiography 
or ft"Oira. This indicates, it is averred, that the book was 
composed very late, i. e. a very considerable time after the 
other prophetic books, and that the Jews did not deem it wor- 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 127 

thy of a place among their prophetic books in general. The 
questions to which these allegations give rise, are of impor- 
tance ; and some of them will be resumed and examined in 
the sequel. But nothing more can be said respecting them 
at present, inasmuch as we are bound now to pursue the in- 
teresting theme that has so long occupied our attention. "We 
must not take our leave of the Hebrew prophets without sub- 
joining a few remarks in respect to the character of these extra- 
ordinary men. 

The mental endowments of many of them are sufficiently 
disclosed by the works which they have left behind them. 
There is indeed among them, as among the writers of the 
New Testament, a great diversity of style, and evidently 
also, of taste and capacity. The Spirit of God, when he 
speaks by men, does not create new mental and psychological 
powers, but employs those already existing, and acts by en- 
lightening and sanctifying and guiding them, still leaving 
each individual to develop his own peculiar characteristics 
of taste and mental endowments. But if there be any com- 
positions which in their kind exceed many of the Psalms, 
much of Isaiah, Joel, Habakkuk, Nahum, and not a few por- 
tions of Jeremiah ; if there ever have been any of any age or 
nation down to the present hour, which exceed them, I have 
no knowledge of such compositions, and do not expect to at- 
tain to such a knowledge. The prophets need only to be read 
with intelligence, with candour, and with some good measure 
of oriental taste, (I believe this to be indispensable), to take, 
in one's estimation, an exalted, I would say the most exalted, 
place among the literary productions of any or of all ages. 

Other works of the Old Testament, indeed, besides those 
which Ave of the present day usually name prophecy, most 
probably came from the pen of the prophets. But of these, 
as they are anonymous, I do not speak at present. I shall 
come to the consideration of them, when we have dismissed 
our present theme. Let us now, at the close of this view of 
the Hebrew writers, teachers, and means of instruction, bring 
distinctly before us the question : 



128 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

What was the moral and religious character of the Hebrew 
prophets ? My answer must be brief; but I cannot forego it, as 
their character stands in so intimate a connection with the 
rise of the Old Test. Scriptures. I must say, then, from both 
a general and particular survey of their history, that as a body 
they stand on a lofty preeminence above all their contempo- 
raries, whether judges, kings, priests, Levites, or the common 
people of the Hebrews. I speak, of course, of true prophets, 
not of pretenders, soothsayers, and fortune-tellers. Not a few 
of these, from time to time, arose and had a baleful influence. 
But the Mosaic Law condemns them, and the true prophets 
of God denounce them in unmeasured terms. 

From the first appearance of Hebrew prophets on the 
stage of action, down to Malachi the last of the series, promi- 
nent traits of character mark them as a distinct class of men. 
One sees in them, at all times and places, an animated zeal 
for the worship of the only living and true God, and a corre- 
spondent, inextinguishable, irreconcilable, steadfast hatred 
and contempt of all idols and false gods, of their worship, 
their worshippers, their rites and ceremonies. Conscious of 
the integrity and uprightness of their own designs, the prophets 
never shrink from urging their views upon all around them. 
Do threats of violence, persecution, or even martyrdom, en- 
sue, they never shrink back from their undertaking. It mat- 
ters not with them whom they are addressing, be they kings, 
princes, nobles, priests, Levites, or common people. They 
have but one and the same message for all, and that is, the 
necessity of sincere and hearty obedience to the laws of God. 
Their courage and resolution never fail, or even seem to abate. 
Whether Nathan appears before David to accuse him of adul- 
tery and murder ; or Elijah before Ahab to remonstrate 
against his oppression and idolatry ; or Jeremiah before Jeho- 
iakim or Zedekiah to admonish them and their corrupt cour- 
tiers ; or Urijah before Jehoiakim who persecuted even unto 
death ; it matters not as to the fidelity, boldness, zeal, and 
constancy of the prophet. They do not appear even to have 
asked themselves, whether they might not avoid persecution, 



§ 4. LITERATURE OP THE HEBREWS. 129 

or danger, or death, by withholding their message. Enough 
that they felt commissioned to say: Thus saith Jehovah. 
With them it seems to have made no practical difference, 
whether the message connected with their commission was to 
be addressed to the king on the throne, or to the beggar on the 
dunghill. 

On the side of right, justice, humanity, uprightness, sin- 
cerity, true kindness, we are ahvays sure to find them. The 
widow, the orphan and the oppressed, they are ever ready to 
succour. They spare none who violate the sacred principles 
of the moral virtues ; surely not those who hanker after idols. 
On the side of law, order, decorum, peaceful demeanor, we 
never fail to meet with them. Their zeal for the only living 
and true God, his honour, his worship, his ordinances, never 
cools, and never permits them to temporize or hesitate, when 
any of these are in jeopardy. We always find them, more- 
over, to possess rational and spiritual views of religion. Rites 
and ceremonies they regard as only subordinate means to an 
ultimate and higher end. Bigotry and superstition form no 
ingredients of their character. The Mosaic rites with them 
are but rites, and nothing more. That these were only the 
shadow of good things to come, is the sum of all they ever 
said, or would say, respecting them. 

With all this, they were unflinching, undeviating patriots, 
having the prosperity of their country most deeply at heart. 
When kings and counsellors erred, and formed dangerous 
alliances, they always remonstrated boldly. They did not 
even wait to be sent for and consulted, on such occasions. 
Urged on by the fear of God and the love of country, they 
spake with entire freedom on subjects pertaining to the weal 
of the commonwealth, to the king on his throne even when 
his menacing executioners were around him, or to the raging 
multitude who were ready to tear them in pieces. 

With all this boldness, yea indomitable courage, they do 
not appear to have been rash, or impetuous, or foolishly prodi- 
gal of life by exposing themselves unnecessarily to danger 



130 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

which they might anticipate. Elijah, after delivering his 
prophetic message, fled from the face of Ahab and Jezebel, 
who meant to take his life ; 1 Kings 17: 1 — 6. The good 
Obadiah concealed a hundred prophets in caves, and supplied 
them with nutriment, when Jezebel persecuted them with 
relentless fury ; 1 Kings 18: 4. Elisha bars his door against 
the approach of an assassin ; 2 Kings 6: 31, 32. Jeremiah 
hid himself from the rage of his persecutors; Jer. 36: 26. 
The like was done in other cases ; and so was it afterwards 
done by the Saviour, and by his apostles. Yet when duty 
called, suffering and death were met with equanimity and un- 
shrinking boldness, by these faithful ministers of virtue and 
piety. In all this, they differed widely from the raving fa- 
natics, who now and then, in every age, make their appear- 
ance, and rush on death with a fool-hardiness which makes 
no distinction between the claims of conscience and duty and 
those of mere enthusiasm and momentary excitement. 

To have maintained such a character, and this through, it 
may be, a long life, required an unshaken confidence in God. 
This the prophets did doubtless possess. They were con- 
scious of something within, to which the world were stran- 
gers, and which, therefore, the world did not well appreciate. 
Look at the demeanor of Isaiah, after having severely re- 
proved Ahaz for his league with the Assyrian king, and pre- 
dicted the overruning of the kingdom by the Assyrian forces ; 
he seals up the prophecy, and suspending his reputation and 
not improbably his life on the issue, he waits quietly the fulfil- 
ment of what he had predicted; Isa. 8: 16 — 18. A most 
vivid picture is drawn in Jer. 15: 10 — 21. 20: 7 — 18, of the 
agonies which this prophet endured in the execution of his 
office, and also of the fidelity and confidence which he still 
exhibited. It would be easy to enlarge this portion of our 
sketch, by adding many instances of the like nature ; but our 
present limits forbid. 

It has been brought as a matter of accusation against the 
prophets, that they were rigid and severe, not only against 



§ 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 131 

the heathen in general, but against their own fellow country- 
men whenever they betrayed any symptoms of idolatrous in- 
clinations. This charge I do not feel much interested to re- 
pel. If the Mosaic law can stand before the tribunal of criti- 
cism in respect to matters of this nature, sure I am that the 
prophets may maintain their position. Their prophecies 
against the heathen are to be regarded in a two-fold light, 
viz., in that of religion and in that of politics. The heathen 
were all idolaters. They were of course naturally enemies 
to the Jews, who despised their idol-gods. The heathen 
aimed to destroy both the religion and the national indepen- 
dence of the Hebrews. With the prophets, it was a question 
whether religion and the people of God should become ex- 
tinct or not, when they contemplated the invasion of Judea 
by the heathen. How could they speak on such occasions, 
either as patriots or as worshippers of the true God, without 
strong feeling and much excitement ? And with respect to 
the vicious and idolatrous among their own people, were not 
such far more guilty 'than the foreign heathen ? I know well, 
indeed, after all this, that the times in which the prophets 
lived stand chargeable with no small portion of the alleged 
severity of this order of men. The all but universal persua- 
sion was, that strenuousness in urging the claims of justice, 
and in humbling enemies, was by no means a trait in the ru- 
lers of a nation which could be disapproved of or condemned. 
The oriental world retain that characteristic down to the pre- 
sent hour. In Persia, they are even now wont to say, that 
such a Shah as Mohammed Aga Khan was the kind of king 
that Persia needed. In their view he was the model of a 
great prince. Yet this same Mohammed Aga fairly outdid 
Nero in atrocities. I do not say this in order to justify undue 
severity, at any time or in any age. But it is ever to be re- 
membered, that Judaism is not Christianity. Law and jus- 
tice were inscribed on the standards of the Mosaic institu- 
tions. We find there " the mount that burned with fire, and 
blackness, and darkness, and tempest ;" we hear the trumpet 
proclaiming the law with a sound that shakes the earth, fills 



132 § 4. LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 

the people with awful terror, and makes even Moses himself 
to tremble; Heb. 12: 18 — 21. On the other hand, the first 
proclamation of Christianity is the greeting of the joyful an- 
gels : " Peace on earth ; good will to men." How can it be, 
that the principal ministers of the Old Testament dispensa- 
tion, i. e. the prophets, should not conform to the tenor of the 
dispensation itself ? 

And now, let the intelligent and honest reader compare 
the order of prophets among the Hebrews, with any other 
class of men, not of that nation only, but among all the na- 
tions of the ancient world. With the priests and Levites 
among the Jews one may most naturally compare them. The 
offices of both orders were important to the purposes of the 
Mosaic dispensation. But after all, the priests were the min- 
isters of form and ritual, the prophets of substantial morality 
and piety. How little do we hear of the priests in the Old 
Testament records, excepting now and then in the way of re- 
proof by the prophets for their malversation. Now and then 
a high priest, a man of superior intellect, piety, and patriotism, 
meets our view. Yet these instances are few and far be- 
tween. How could the Jewish people take the. same interest 
in them, as they did in their substantial and active religious 
instructers and advisers ? Occasionally, yet quite seldom, a 
priest is also a prophet ; and then, of course, we may expect 
from him a prominent part. But otherwise we find, that all 
the Jewish kings go to the prophets for advice, in their exi- 
gencies ; and that no affairs of state are regarded by consid- 
erate men as promising good, which have not the concurrence 
and co-operation of the prophets. Certainly it was on these, 
that all sober and pious people among the Hebrews relied, 
far more than they did upon kings and princes with their 
counsellors, or upon the priests and Levites. 

I would moreover solicit a comparison of the prophets, with 
the men of an alleged similar office among the heathen. 
What are the [xdvTeig, the 7iooq)>JTcu, d-eaniGTuf, xq'i' 1 !' ^'}' ^ 
ortiQOfiuvzsig, 6vatQ07i6Xoi, oveiQOOxonoi, and the itoonxoTZOt, 
of the Greeks, and those of corresponding names among the 



§ 4 LITERATURE OF THE HEBREWS. 133 

Romans, in comparison with the Hebrew prophets ? The 
heathen prophets, (if we may so name them), made an art 
of soothsaying. They played all manner of tricks, and re- 
sorted to all manner of devices, in order to support the repu- 
tation of themselves and their pretended oracles. Cicero tells 
us, that two diviners could never look each other in the face 
without laughing ; evidently because both were conscious of 
the frauds which they practised, and of the success of their 
impositions. And where, in all antiquity, are they presented 
to us as the zealous defenders of real piety and good morals ? 
Where are their missions to guide and instruct the people in 
matters of morality and real religion? Superstitious they 
were, indeed, to great excess. The persecution and death of 
all who were opposed to their views, not unfrequently follow- 
ed any active opposition. But neither their office, their lives, 
their favourite objects, or even their influence, at least their 
influence for good, will bear any comparison with those of the 
Hebrew prophets. 

To this extraordinary class of men, now, we owe most, if 
not all, of the 0. Test. Scriptures. What one among them 
all, if Ezra and perhaps Nehemiah be excepted, came with 
any certainty from the hands of a priest, who was not also a 
prophet ? Hence in tracing the history of the rise and pro- 
gress of the Hebrew Canon, it was necessary to bring before 
the mind a somewhat full picture of the class of men who 
were active in its composition. They stand on a lofty eminence 
above all their contemporaries. They bear a character which 
the tongue even of slander cannot assail with any success. 
Perfect men we need not and do not suppose them to have 
been. But it would be difficult perhaps to find, under the 
Christian dispensation itself and among its ministers, men of 
more unblemished and exalted character. From the prevail- 
ing vices of their times they plainly stood aloof. It would 
seem that in some respects they even went beyond the let- 
ter, (yet not beyond the true spirit), of the Mosaic Law. I 
cannot call to mind a single instance of polygamy or concu- 
binage among them ; although the Law of Moses allowed at 
12 



134 § 5. HISTORY OF CANON. 

least the former, or at any rate did not forbid it. The alleged 
case of the polygamy of Isaiah (chap. vii. viii.), turns out to be 
wholly without proof or foundation, when the meaning of the 
prophet is strictly examined. The virgin who was to con- 
ceive and bear a son, in case we insist on her marriage an- 
tecedent to his birth, is not spoken of still as the wife of the 
prophet, or as about to become his wife. I cannot doubt that 
the great law of monogamy, which the God of nature has im- 
pressed upon our race by dividing it into halves between the 
sexes, was practically recognized and complied with by the 
prophets as a body. 

Such are the men, then, from whom come the books of the 
Old Testament. God has put an honour upon them far above 
that which belonged to priests and Levites. How could this 
have taken place, if the ritual was, in his eyes, entitled to the 
most conspicuous place under the Jewish dispensation ? 

It would be a most interesting topic of discussion, were we 
to pursue inquiries respecting the times, places, and manner 
of prophesying or preaching among the Hebrews. The cha- 
racteristics of prophetic discourse, its tropical language, its 
symbol, its allegory, the manner of delivering it and of pre- 
serving it, the impression which it made, the topics which 
were the most usual themes of it — all these and other matters 
in relation to the subject it would be delightful to discuss. 
But these belong to an appropriate treatise on the Hebrew 
prophets, and must, for the sake of brevity and unity of de- 
sign, be excluded from our present consideration. 

§ 5. Continued history of the Canon ; books supposed to bear 
the iiames of their authors. 

It is time to inquire in what position we now stand in re- 
spect to the Canon of the O. Test. Scriptures. Beginning, 
as we have done,- with Moses, the greatest prophet of all in 
ancient days, and following the books down whose authors are 
known, we have, according to the representations made above, 
the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel (for I can- 



§ 5. BOOKS OF DOUBTFUL AUTHORS. ' 135 

not regard this work as supposititious), and the twelve Minor 
Prophets. If there be any exceptions to these, they must be 
some parts of Isaiah and of Zechariah, which, as we have al- 
ready seen, are thought, by most of the recent critics in Ger- 
many, to belong to anonymous writers ; and possibly the book 
of Jonah may have been written by a person different from the 
prophet himself. Whether this be so or not, is a question which 
belongs to the special criticism of the Old Testament, and 
does not affect at all the nature and design of my present un- 
dertaking ; for it is conceded on all hands, that even the 
anonymous compositions among these, (if such there are), 
must have sprung from so called prophets ; and, with scarce- 
ly any exceptions, if any at all, from prophets before the ter- 
mination of the Babylonish exile. With us the question at 
present is not, what specific individual wrote this or that book 
of Scripture, or this or that part of any book, but whether it 
was written by such men as gave to the composition a right to 
be placed among the sacred books of the Hebrews. 

In our historical sketch of the prophets, we have passed 
in brief review the works which bear their names, and in re- 
spect to which we do not think there is any reasonable ground 
of doubt as to their genuineness. We now come to a second 
class of books, which, without bearing the name of their au- 
thors, seem to ascribe their composition to particular individ- 
uals, in the inscriptions affixed to them. In consequence of 
this, I forbear to put them among the books which all con- 
fess to be anonymous. Of the books now before us, some 
appear to be properly assigned, as to most of their contents, 
to particular individuals ; while the inscriptions prefixed to 
others are of a doubtful character. 

We begin with the first class of these. And to this class 
belongs the book of Psalms. That this was principally com- 
posed by David, has been generally acknowledged. (I have 
found no one but Lengerke who seems to doubt or deny this). 
But there were several coadjutors, some contemporary and 
others not, in this work. Thirty-four Psalms only are with- 
out any inscription ; but the inscription, does not always give 



136 § 5. HISTORY OF CANON. 

the name of the author, for sometimes it merely refers to then 
existing outward circumstances, sometimes to the music to be 
employed, and then to some special use of the Psalm. A 
part of the inscriptions is probably from the hand of redac- 
tors, and is not always trustworthy. About one hundred 
Psalms are usually assigned to David ; some of which per- 
haps are of doubtful authorship, and some most probably did 
not come from his pen. To Moses is assigned Ps. 90 ; to 
Solomon, Ps. 72. 127 ; to Asaph, Ps. 50. 74—83, making 
eleven ; to Heman, Ps. 88 ; to Ethan, Ps. 89. De Wette 
himself concedes, that a number of the anonymous Psalms 
may not improbably be assigned to David and his contempo- 
raries. Ten Psalms, i. e. Ps. 42—47. 84. 85. 87. 88, are 
usually supposed to be assigned, by the titles, to the sons of 
Korah, i. e. to Korahites, who were priests and sons of Levi. 
The usual title is : To the chief musician, for the sons of 
Korah ; but rTn'p *Vnb may also designate the authorship of 
the Psalms, inasmuch as b often, and even usually, stands be- 
fore an author's name, as indicating the source whence the 
composition sprang. What inclines one to doubt that sense 
of the expression here, is the plurality or partnership which 
it would make in the authorship ; a thing literally impossible 
in compositions so brief, and of such a marked character. 
Moreover, one might almost say of the Psalms in question : 
A greater than David is here. From one pen and one heart 
they must have come ; and that the authorship should be 
assigned in such an indefinite way as the expression sons of 
Korah would indicate, that a partnership in the composition 
of such pieces should be deemed feasible, are serious difficul- 
ties in the way of supposing that authorship is indicated by 
the title. 

For our present purpose, indeed, it matters not who was 
the particular author of this or that Psalm. The authors na- 
med, almost without exception, lived at or near the time of 
David. A few Psalms are unquestionably of later origin ; 
some of them were composed at the period of the captivity, and 
even after the exile ; e. g. Ps. 85. 106, probably 107. 126. 



§ 5. BOOKS OP DOUBTFUL AUTHORS. 137 

129. 137. 147. De Wette himself confesses it to be doubtful, 
whether any of the Psalms (e. g. 44. 60. 74. 76. 79. 83. 119, 
reckoned by some as of Maccabaean times) are to be assigned 
to the period of the Maccabees ; Einleit. § 270. 3d ed. That 
question I take to be now generally regarded as settled by 
Hassler, in his Com?n. Grit, de Pslmnis Maccab. 1827. Eich- 
horn and Gesenius moreover doubt so late an origin. Eosen- 
mueller unequivocally abandons such a position, in the pre- 
face to his compendious Comm. in Psalmos, 1833 ; while, in 
explaining Ps. 74: 8, he again adopts it. The fact, that the 
book of Psalms was long in the process of formation, (if we 
begin with David, about 1050 B. C. and go down to 536 — 
457, the time at and after the return from the captivity in 
which some scriptural books were written, we must make 
more than 500 years for the period of formation), occasioned 
it to be compiled in five various books. Thus we have in the 
first book, Ps. i — xli ; in the second book, Ps. xlii — lxxii ; 
in the third, Ps. lxxiii- — lxxxix ; in the fourth, Ps. xc — cvi ; 
in the fifth, Ps. cvii — cl. At what particular time these vari- 
ous portions or books were collected and published, we do not 
know for certainty. But it is quite manifest, that in general 
the older Psalms, i. e. those of David's time, were first col- 
lected ; and so in succession, as Psalms worthy of introduc- 
tion were composed. Now and then some more ancient com- 
positions make their appearance in the later books of the 
Psalms, viz. in the fourth and fifth, which had been over- 
looked in the former compilations. If any Psalms were ad- 
ded in the time of the Maccabees, it would seem then to be 
nearly or quite certain, that they would be found in the fifth 
and last book. But as the alleged Maccabaean Psalms most- 
ly belong to the earlier rather than the later portions of the 
book, the improbability of their late composition becomes 
too great to support a critical belief. The early establishment 
of such musical choirs as belonged to the temple-service, both 
old and new, would cause all psalms and hymns fitted for that 
service to be early and earnestly sought for. We may there- 
fore, without any danger of erring, place the completion of 
12* 



138 § 5. HISTORY OF CANON. 

the book of Psalms at a period antecedent to the death of 
Malachi, for it will not be seriously contended that anything ' 
in them obliges us to assume that they are later. On the 
question, whether the anonymous Psalms were properly in- 
cluded among the contents of the sacred books, we are not 
competent to pass a judgment which is grounded on historical 
and minute information, since we have not such information, 
and cannot obtain it. But it is enough for our present 
purpose, if we can show that the book of Psalms, as it now 
is, comes down from a period near the death of Malachi. 
The contrary of this we may challenge any criticism to es-: 
tablish. 

The book of Proverbs may well be referred to Solomon 
as its principal author. The Hebrew is of the golden age, 
and speaks most decidedly against a late composition. The 
titles which we find in Prov. 1: 1. .10: 1, ascribe the work to 
Solomon. Possibly 22: 17 — 24: 34, may have originated 
from another band, and been incorporated by Solomon. Chap. 
25: 1 gives an entirely new and singular title : " These are 
the Proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king 
of Judah transcribed, or copied out, fipipiSh . I understand 
this of transcription from some Ms. of Solomon, which had 
not before (so to speak) been published. The verb ^P'wn 
cannot possibly be understood of original composition, for 
!Dri3 would be the word to designate that. De Wette under- 
stands Prov 25: 1 as asserting, that the men of Hezekiah re- 
duced to writing proverbs that were orally circulated before, 
and ascribed to Solomon. But this too would require toFfi. 
Be this matter however as it may, it makes nothing to our 
present purpose. That the composition is not late, is agreed 
on all hands. Prov. xxx. is ascribed to Agur ; Prov. xxxi. 
to king Lemuel, as taught by his mother. The time of their 
composition we know not. But De Wette himself, (always 
inclined to make the origin of books as late as possible), fully 
concedes that they could not have been written after the 
Babylonish exile ; Einl. § 281. 

Ecclesiastes was regarded by all the ancients as a pro- 



§ 5. BOOKS OF DOUBTFUL AUTHORS. 139 

duction of Solomon. But doubts respecting such an origin 
have recently been brought forward, and seem to be of such 
a nature as cannot easily be solved. The title (Ecc. 1: 1) 
seems to appropriate the work to Solomon. Yet the like 
language might be employed by a later writer, whose plan 
was to repeat the sayings and detail the experience of Solo- 
mon. Peculiarly impressive does tbe book become, in re- 
spect to the subject of the emptiness and vanity of all earth- 
ly objects and pursuits, when presented as dei*ived from the 
experience and reflections of such a king, who was at the very 
summit of human greatness. Tbat this, however, belongs 
rather to the plan of the book than to the category of realities, 
seems to be made probable by arguments drawn from the 
matter and manner of the book. The complaints, in many 
parts of the book, of crushing oppression (Ecc. 4: 1) ; of the 
exactions of provincial rulers (5: 7) ; of the exaltation of low 
men to high offices (10: 5 — 7) ; of the present as inferior to 
the past (7: 10) ; of the frequent changes of regents and their 
unsuitable behaviour — all seem to betoken a book written at 
a very different time from that of Solomon. How singular it 
sounds, moreover, -when we hear Solomon say : " I was king 
over Israel at Jerusalem" (1: 12) ; singular, I mean, on the 
supposition that Solomon was the actual author. Did any 
one need to be told this ? How singular for Solomon him- 
self to say, that ' he was wiser and richer than all the kings 
in Jerusalem before him' (1: 16. 2: 7, 9), when David his 
father was the only king who had reigned there. The dic- 
tion, moreover, of this book differs so widely from that of 
Solomon in the book of Proverbs, that it is difficult to believe 
that both came from the same pen. Chaucer does not differ 
more from Pope, than Ecclesiastes from Proverbs. It seems 
to me, when I read Coheleth, that it presents one of those 
cases which leave no room for doubt, so striking and promi- 
nent is the discrepancy. In our English translation this is in 
some good measure lost, by running both books in the same 
English mold. There is only a single trait of resemblance, 
which any one would consider as marked or noticeable ; and 



140 § 5. HISTORY OF CAXON. 

this is, the sententious or apothegmatic turn of the book. In 
this respect one is often led to direct his thoughts toward the 
book of Proverbs, which abounds in, and almost wholly con- 
sists of, sayings of such a sententious nature. Yet how very 
different is the diction and style of each book, in the original 
Hebrew. And then the general circle of thought is still more 
discrepant. The philosophic doubts and puzzles of Ecclesi- 
astes, and the manner of discussing them, have no parallel 
either in Proverbs, or in any other part of the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures. They remind one of many things discussed by So- 
crates, in the Dialogues of Plato. I cannot help thinking 
that the writer must have been a Hebrew who had resided 
abroad, where he had formed some acquaintance with the phi- 
losophic discussions of the Greeks. So unique is the tenor 
of his book, and so widely different from the usual circle of 
Hebrew thinking, that no very probable account can be given 
of these matters, without such a supposition. 

As to the age of Ecclesiastes, critics have widely disagreed, 
ranging from Solomon down to the time of the Maccabees. 
But the appeal usually made to the language or diction of the 
book, in proof of a very late age, will hardly stand the test. 
Knobel, in his recent and much praised commentary on the 
book of Ecclesiastes, asserts and has endeavoured to show, that 
the book is deeply tinctured with Chaldaisms, and words of 
the later Hebrew. He even thinks that it savours strongly of" 
the diction of the Rabbins and Talmudists. But the scores 
of his Chaldaisms have been reduced by a later writer, better 
acquainted with this idiom, (Herzfeld, a German Jew, in his 
notable work, Coheleth translated and explained, 1838), to 
some 8 or 10 ; and his later Hebrew words (some scores more), 
to some 1 1 — 15. The investigation of Herzfeld is so thorough, 
that appeal from it seems to be nearly out of question. And 
besides the fact, that the quantity of later Hebrew diction and 
Chaldaism is so small, we must take into view the additional 
consideration, that the Phenician language, unquestionably of 
the same character as the Hebrew in its basis, resembles more 
what is called the younger Hebrew, than it does the ancient. 



§ 5. BOOKS OF DOUBTFUL AUTHORS. 141 

The young Hebrew, therefore, may in fact be very old. So 
Gesenius, after all his investigations of the Phenician ; Hall. 
Lit, Zeit. 1837. No. 81. 

There is nothing, either in the matter or diction of the book, 
absolutely and exactly to settle its age. But the course of 
thought seems to indicate an acquaintance with philosophical 
disputes ; and the complaints of oppression, of frequent change 
of rulers, of the exactions of provincial satraps, and of the toils 
and dangers of life — all seem to indicate some period of its 
composition under the Persian government. If the opinion 
of Josephus is to be relied upon (Contra Apion. I. §8, which 
will be hereafter adduced and examined), Ecclesiastes must 
have been composed at some period before the death of Arta- 
xerxes Longimanus, i. e. antecedent to 424 B. C. De Wette 
and Knobel think, that the end of the Persian period, or the 
beginning of the Macedonian one, was the time. But there are 
many and weighty objections against such a^upposition, as we 
shall see in due time. 

The Canticles present a difficulty somewhat like to that 
which we have just been considering. The title purports that the 
book came from Solomon ; at least if ria'birb is to be regarded 
as indicative of authorship ; which is usually the fact. That 
it may be regarded in this light, so far as the language is con- 
cerned, there is no doubt. But if the idiom of the book, 
which differs not a little from that of the book of Proverbs, is 
to be taken into consideration ; if moreover such passages as 
Cant. 1: 4, 5, 12. 3: 6—11. 7: 5. 8: 11, 12, be attentively ex- 
amined, the difficulty of regarding Solomon as the proper 
author of the book will not be inconsiderable. That Solomon 
is the subject of the book, there can be no doubt. That some 
writer contemporary with him may have composed it, is quite 
possible, notwithstanding its idiom. The freshness of all its 
scenery seems to betoken much in favour of such a view. 
The diction is neither Chaldaic or Aramaean in such a de- 
gree as to render this either impossible or improbable. Her- 
der and Dopke strenuously maintain the early date of the book. 
De Wette thinks the composition of the poem may have been 






142 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

early, and that it may have been only orally preserved for a 
long time ; which, moreover, he supposes may account for the 
want of regular order and unity in the present arrangement 
of the book. But I cannot deem this probable, considering 
that the book obtained a place in the sacred Canon. It is 
enough for my present purpose, however, that the book was, 
beyond any reasonable critical doubt, included in the Canon 
whenever the same was completed. Josephus, at any rate, 
appears most plainly to include it ; for without it we cannot 
make out the number of sacred books which he specifies. 

The theological scruples which have raised, or at any rate 
sought for, objections against the Canticles, stand on the ba- 
sis of its contents. How, it is asked, can an amatory poem be 
a part of Scripture ? This question brings into view the main 
objection which is felt against the book. On this question I 
hope to say something in the sequel ; but in order to avoid 
repetition, I must omit remarks pertaining to this part of the 
subject for the present. One thing seems to be quite clear, 
viz. that whoever they were that inserted this book in the 
Canon of Scripture, they must have regarded the work as of a 
religious cast. There is no other example in all the O. Testament 
of any work of a different tenor. If Ruth or Esther should be 
appealed to as exceptions to this remark, it would be easy to 
show, that both of these books have an important bearing on 
points of consequence in the politico-ecclesiastical history of the 
Jewish nation. 



§ 6. Continued History of the Canon; Boohs which are 
Anonymous. 

Thus far of books supposed to be inscribed with the names 
of their author, with the exception of a few Psalms. We 
come now to those which are anonymous. 

Among these the book of Job stands the most conspicuous, 
whether we have respect to the splendid poetry which it ex- 
hibits, or to the nature of the discussion with which it is occu- 
pied. Who wrote it ?■ When ioas it written ? When annexed 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 143 

to the Canon ? These are questions about which there has 
been and still is endless dispute. The main difficulty is, first, 
the want of any proper historical evidence respecting its au- 
thorship ; then, secondly, the want of internal evidence of a 
definite and decisive character, as to the age in which it was 
written. It abounds in references to natural scenery, and to 
Iduraaean and Egyptian localities and objects ; but this does 
not help to decide, whether it was written earlier or later. 
Its idiom, which abounds in Aramaean diction, and often ap- 
proaches the Arabic, seems to betoken an author who lived 
out of Palestine, or at least in a border country. But its Ara- 
maean idioms are not sufficient to settle the question in fa- 
vour of a later age for the book. Very much in this book 
closely resembles the diction of most of the Psalms and of 
Proverbs. And besides this, it is an acknowledged fact, that 
nearly all the poetry of the Old Testament verges towards 
the dialect in question. The Aramaean hue is to Hebrew 
poetry, something like what the Doric one is to the chorusses 
of Greek tragedy. Nothing decisive, therefore, can be made 
out from this quarter, as to the age of the book. 

It is beyond a question, that the author of this book was 
acquainted with many of the Hebrew notions of things, with 
their opinions, their formulas of speech, and the like. With 
events in general before and after the flood, the book mani- 
fests an acquaintance. But all this does not decide anything 
for certainty, as to the time in which it was written. Carp- 
zov, Eichhorn, Jahn, Stuhlmann, Berthholdt, and the great 
mass of English critics, give to the book a date anterior to 
the time of Moses. A number of writers have referred it to 
Solomon, or to some person of his time. More recently, Ge- 
senius, Bernstein, De Wette (first two editions of his Intro- 
duction), Umbreit, and others have set the work down to the 
Chaldee period, i. e. to some period after 610 B. C. De Wette 
now dates it earlier, (as well he may), because of Ezekiel's ex- 
press recognition of Job, in chap. 11: 14, 16, 20. Eosenmuel- 
ler (Proleg. p. 20) places it before the time of Hezekiah. 
Thus the whole matter is in a floating state ; but still, the 



144 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

only question really important to us at present is, whether it 
was composed either before, or during, the time of the Baby- 
lonish exile. If so, it then was undoubtedly a part of the Jew- 
ish Canon, at the close of that exile. 

It is singular to see with what warm zeal the question about 
the age of this poem has been, and still is discussed. Not a 
few writers set about the work of discussion, as if the matter 
were one stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae. How can it be so to 
us? Of what consequence is it, whether the book is older 
or younger, if it belong to the Canon, and did belong to it 
before it was formally closed ? Not a few, moreover, appeal 
to the speeches of Job, Eliphaz, Bilclad, Zophar, and Elihu, 
in support of doctrinal propositions ; just as if these angry 
disputants, who contradict each other, and most of whom God 
himself has declared to be in the wrong (Job 42: 7 — 9), were 
inspired when they disputed ! The man who wrote the book, 
and gave an account of this dispute, might be (I believe he 
was) inspired; he had a great moral purpose in view; but 
how Job is to be appealed to for a sample of doctrine, who 
curses the day of his birth, and says many things under great 
excitement, I am not able to understand. Are we indeed to 
follow him in the sentiment of chap. 14: 7, 10, 12? "There 
is hope of a tree," says he, " if it be cut down, that it will 
sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not 
cease. . . . But man dieth, and wasteth away ; yea, man giv- 
eth up the ghost, and where is he ? . . . Man lieth down, and 
riseth not ; till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, 
nor be raised out of their sleep." And are we to appeal to 
his angry friends, who are in the wrong as to the main point 
in question, for confirmation of a doctrinal sentiment of the 
gospel ? The practical amount of the matter is, that those 
who refer in such a way to this book, merely select what they 
like, and leave the rest. They complain, however, in other 
cases, of doings like to this. They accuse the Unitarians 
and the Rationalists of very unfair and unseriptural practices, 
in so doing with other parts of the Bible. After all, it seems 
to be quite plain, that one might as well appeal to what is 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 145 

said by all manner of persons who are brought to view in the 
Gospels, as authoritative in matters of doctrine, because what 
they said stands in an inspired book, as appeal to the speeches 
of Job and his friends for a like purpose. When will it be 
understood, that the disputants themselves were not inspired ? 
Did they, moreover, all speak in poetry, and all in the same 
cast of poetry, exhibiting such a unity of style ? A rare fac- 
ulty of improvisation those five men must have had, if we as- 
sume such a ground as this. 

But I am indulging in digression. I return to our immedi- 
ate object. To my own mind, the strongest objection against 
the great age of the book of Job is, that it is nowhere re- 
ferred to in all the Hebrew Scriptures, except in the case of 
Ezekiel ; and it appears to have produced no influence upon 
the manner and tenor of the Hebrew sacred writings. I am 
not able to conceive how such a book should have existed so 
long, and have produced no more effect ; for there is not even 
a single quotation of it, or a reference to it in the other 
O. Test. Scriptures. Not so with the Pentateuch. I must 
therefore believe, on the whole, that the book of Job was 
composed during the troublous times of the Jews, in the later 
periods of their kingly government. Yet the fact, that there 
is not in all the book a distinct and certain reference to any- 
thing belonging and peculiar to the Mosaic institutions, rites, 
sacrifices, and feasts, or to Hebrew personages, or history, is 
almost astounding, and seems to stand in our way when we 
assign to the book a later origin. Especially is this so, when 
we consider that it was a Hebreio who wrote this book ; which 
beyond all reasonable question must have been the case. Yet 
it is quite possible, that the writer's plan definitely precluded 
references of the nature in question. It was a part of his 
deliberate plan to compose a book independent of Jewish 
peculiarities, and based upon the more general views of the 
patriarchal religion. It is certainly easier to believe this r 
than to suppose the book to be very ancient, and yet not be 
able to find a trace of its existence or influence, until the 
time of Ezekiel. To allege, as some have done, that the 
13 



146 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

reference in Ezekiel (14: 14, 16, 20) is only to an allegorical 
personage, and therefore pi'oves nothing — is not alleging 
what seems to be very probable. Were Noah and Daniel, 
who are joined with Job, mere fictitious personages in Eze- 
kiel's view ? If not, it hardly seems probable that this pro- 
phet has united real and allegorical personages, and placed 
them both in the same predicament. Besides this, the Job 
to whom Ezekiel refers, seems plainly to be such a personage 
as the book of Job presents to our view. 

If, as has been alleged by some critics, the book of Job 
was composed by a foreigner, an Aramaean or an Arabian, 
how came he by such a knowledge of Hebrew diction and 
rhythm ? It would be next to an impossibility. Above all, 
how came the Jews to admit the book of a foreigner into their 
sacred Canon? 

Who composed the book, whether Job himself or some of 
his friends, we have no means of determining. Exactly when 
it was composed, we cannot decide for want of data. I sup- 
pose, however, that no one well acquainted with the book, 
will doubt its claims to a place in the Jewish Canon, although, 
before Ezekiel's time, we can find no certain traces of it. 

It makes nothing against this, that the genuineness of the 
prologue and epilogue to the book, and also of the speech of 
Elihu, has of late been often called in question. The criti- 
cism of the Destructives, as I am inclined to believe, reached 
its highest point of culmination some time since. Its sun is 
now descending. Whenever it sets, I hope and trust it will 
set to rise no more. The same spirit which makes up the 
Iliad and Odyssey of fragments from a multitude of singing 
beggars brought accidentally together, has made up the book 
of Job in the same way, and with reasons equally good. The 
most recent criticism, however, seems verging back again to- 
ward the opinion of all ages and nations, which knew any- 
thing of the book in question, viz. the opinion that the whole 
of this book belongs to one author, and is one and but one 
work. The numerosity of the book, i. e. the divisions through- 
out into groups of three, strongly favours the genuineness of 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 147 

the whole book. Moreover the poem, without the prologue 
and epilogue, if not absolutely unintelligible, would at least 
lie, in every reader's mind, in a dark, confused, and unsatis- 
factory state. De Wette, as usual, not only doubts the genu- 
ineness of Elihu's speech (ch. xxxii — xxxviii), but also of 
27: 11 — 28: 28. Doubting seems to be an essential element 
of this critic's literary life ; and he appears to derive more 
pleasure from it, than he does from believing. 

Upon the whole I am disposed to think, that few persons 
who are familiar with the course of the human mind in an- 
cient times, as to doubts and reasonings on difficult problems 
of morals or of the divine government of the world, will yield 
their assent to the probability of the very early origin of the 
book of Job. The main question of the book, whether the 
divine Being constantly and adequately rewards virtue and 
piety and punishes sin in the present world, is one that seems to 
spring from an investigation and a spirit of philosophizing, 
which is rarely to be met with among the most ancient He- 
brews. Ecclesiastes is full of a similar spirit ; but as this 
book is manifestly among the later ones, I am inclined to 
place the book of Job in the same age, i. e. in the Chaldean 
period of the prophets, or not long before. The diction de- 
cides nothing certain for any particular age. The almost un- 
equalled sublimity of the composition, the rhythmical perfec- 
tion of its parallelisms, and in general the whole contour of 
the style, would seem to mark it as a production of the gol- 
den age of Hebrew ; as also do its many resemblances of idi- 
om to the idiom of the Psalms and Proverbs. But if the 
German critics are in the right as to Pseudo-Isaiah, we have 
an eminent example in a late age of the like graceful and 
lofty diction and sentiment. At all events, Habakkuk be- 
longs to the Chaldean period ; and he has few equals even in 
the golden age of prophecy. So it may be with the book of 
Job. Great talents, enlightened and guided by the Spirit of 
God, will overcome every obstacle, and present us with por- 
traits that breathe, and move, and speak. 

The book of Lamentations is without an inscription. 



148 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

But from the most ancient times it has been attributed to 
Jeremiah. The contents, tone, spirit, diction, and style of the 
book, accord entirely with tradition. The Septuagint version 
has prefixed an inscription that attributes it to Jeremiah ; 
which at least shows what tradition taught some 130 or more 
years before the Christian era. Josephus (Antiq. X. 5. 1.) 
also attributes the book to Jeremiah ; but he avers, that it was 
written on the occasion of Josiah's being slain by Pharaoh 
Necho. This seems to accord with, and most probably was 
deduced from, the declaration in 2 Chron. 35: 25, viz. that 
" Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, and all the singing men and 
singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this 
day." Similar compositions, on like occasions, we find in 
2 Sam. 1: 17—27. 3: 33, 34. Critics, therefore, have been 
divided in opinion, respecting the question, whether the book 
of Lamentations was written before or after the capture of Je- 
rusalem. I cannot bring my own mind, however, to a doubt 
respecting this question. That Jeremiah composed an elegiac 
song on the occasion of Josiah's death, as the book of Chroni- 
cles states, I have no doubt. It was altogether a subject 
suited to the taste and genius of this writer. But that our 
present book of Lamentations exhibits this elegiac ode, I 
must greatly doubt. What is there in it about Josiah ? It is 
the holy city, its solemnities, its feasts, its people gone into 
captivity, the horrors of the siege, the famine and pestilence 
that ensued, and the like, on which the book dwells, and 
which constitute the whole burden of the elegies. What con- 
cern has all this with the death of Josiah ? 

But be this matter as it may, there can be no question that 
the Lamentations is a book which existed before the return 
from the captivity ; and it takes a place in the Canon of the 
Old Test. Scriptures, because it contains matter so deeply in- 
teresting both to the ancient church and people of God. Neo- 
logical criticism has little to say about the book, seemingly 
because it contains no accounts of miraculous events, which 
are sure to provoke an attack. 

We have yet a considerable class of historical books, 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 149 

which bear no name of their authors, but receive a name 
from the leading subject of them, viz. Joshua, Judges, Euth, 
I. and II. Samuel, I. and II. Kings, I. and II. Chronicles, 
Esther, perhaps jSTehemiah and Ezra. Of several of these I 
have already spoken. 

The book of Joshua is naturally divided into two parts. 
The first part, chap. i. — xii, contains the history of the con- 
quest of Canaan ; the second, chap, xiii — xxiv, contains the 
history of the division of the land, and of subsequent arrange- 
ments to provide for obedience to the laws. According to the 
account of the neological critics, it is full of myths [i. e. stories of 
miracles], of contradictions, and of a Levitical spirit. It is also 
pronounced to be a mere book of fragments, made up of Elohistic 
and Jehovistic [?] documents, and other scraps and traditions 
which had floated down to the writer on the surface of time. 
Van Herwerden divides it into ten separate documents ; but 
Koenig, in a recent work, maintains the unity of the book. 
This same writer also maintains, that it was written at or near 
the time, when the events which it records took place. Oth- 
ers place its origin at the time of Saul, others of David, of Jo- 
siah, and even of the exile. If we can place any dependence 
on internal evidence, (and why not ?) then would Josh. 15: 63, 
which speaks of " the Jebusites, i. e. the inhabitants of Jerusa- 
lem, as not driven out, but (Swelling with the children of Ju- 
dah unto this day" compared with 2 Sam. 5: 6 — 9, which 
shows that David thoroughly subdued them, seem to render it 
very probable, that the book was composed before the reign of 
David, or at least before his conquest of Jerusalem. Nothing 
can be more natural than to suppose, that a record would be 
made of the conquest and the division of Palestine, soon after 
those events. How could the division and apportionment of it 
be rendered authoritative and permanent, unless by some 
record of the same ? That it was written after the death of 
Joshua and of his contemporary elders, seems to be certain- 
from Josh. 24: 31, where Israel is spoken of as serving the 
Lord until after the death of these persons. So the death of 
13* 



150 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

Eleazar, the son of Aaron is recorded, (Josh. 24: 33), but not 
of his successor Phinehas. But if the book be $>o fragmentary 
as is alleged, then such declarations would only go to show 
the age of the fragment in which they are contained. 

Mr. Parker (in his additions to De Wette, II. p. 188 seq.) 
has exhibited a graphic specimen of the usual neological rea- 
soning. " The book of Joshua," he suggests, " makes fre- 
quent appeals to the Law of Moses ; but this Law could not 
have been written until after the time of Josiah ; ergo, the 
book of Joshua could not have been written until after the 
same time." The main proposition is plainly a mere petitio 
principii. But no matter : Delenda est Carthago. 

The Samaritans, along with the Pentateuch, have also a 
book of Joshua, containing much of what is in the Hebrew 
book of the same name, with additional fabulous matter of 
their own. Was there not, then, a book of Joshua, when the 
ten tribes separated from the two, in the reign of Kehoboam ? 
Appearances seem to favour this supposition. Those tribes re- 
tained the Scriptures then extant, but never added any more. 
I would not deny the probability, that documents of several 
kinds are contained in the book of Joshua ; but that they 
passed through the hands and under the revisal of some one 
compiler, whose office or name gave authority to the book, I 
cannot well doubt. Many of the alleged contradictions and 
discrepancies are easily removed, on such a ground ; but it 
comports not with my present object to enter into the discus- 
sion of these matters. 

The book of Judges is also anonymous. The main his- 
torical elements of the book end with the biography of Sam- 
son, Judg. 16: 31. Chap, xvit — xxi contain an appendix, 
showing how anarchy and licentiousness were introduced, af- 
ter the death of Joshua, among the men of the following gene- 
ration. There is nothing in the diction or style of the book, 
which would serve at all to prove a late origin. But such 
passages as those in Judg. 17: 6. 18: 1. 19: 1. 21: 25, Avhich 
attribute certain evils to the times, because there was no king 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 151 

in the land, seem strongly to savour of being written after 
there was some example of an efficient and orderly monarchi- 
cal government. 

The book is strongly marked with several peculiarities. 
Except reference in the song of Deborah (5: 4, 5) to the ap- 
pearance of Jehovah on mount Sinai, there is nothing in the 
book of Judges that refers to the law of Moses, to the priest- 
hood, to the Levitical rites, nor to any prophets, excepting in 
one case (7: 8), and the instance of Deborah, iv. The truth 
plainly is, that the writer did not design to give anything like 
a regular and connected series of history, during the 300 
years which are covered by the book of Judges. (De Wette 
makes them above 400). The peculiar sins of the people, 
their exemplary sufferings in consequence of them, and the 
signal deliverances which they experienced under this heroic 
leader and that, occupy the whole book, with the exception of 
the appendix before mentioned ; and this stands in connec- 
tion with the general subject. As to the chronology of the 
book itself, I question if any regular and certain series can 
be satisfactorily made out from it. 

The most natural origin of such a book would be, during the 
prevalence of idolatry in Judah or in Israel. A true prophet 
would seize such an occasion in order to hold up to view past 
experiences, as a warning to the idolatrous people of the dan- 
ger which they were encountering. That he possessed no- 
tices, probably written ones, of the past, seems highly proba- 
ble. Even oral tradition would preserve a knowledge of 
many things related in the book of Judges, which were of an 
extraordinary and wonderful nature. The tone of piety and 
zeal for the honour of God, as manifest in the book, is ele- 
vated and pure. Ritual services are plainly quite secondary 
in the writer's vieAV. But idolatry, and oppression, and other 
vices he censures with unsparing severity. A spirit kindred 
to that of David and Samuel, must have animated his bosom. 

The so-called myths (uv&oi) of the book are nnmerous. 
In other words, (not to speak with the neological critics), the 
extraordinary and even miraculous occurrences related in it 



I 



152 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

are not a few. The stories of Gideon and Samson, in 
particular, elicit a tempest of objections from recent criticism. 
Among all, however, who accuse the book of anile attachment 
to fables and myths, I find none who go so far as Dr. Palfrey, 
late Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Seminary 
at Cambridge, in the tone and manner of criticism. In his 
Academical Lectures (II. p. 194 seq.), speaking of Samson, 
he says : " The character of Samson is but a wild compound 
of the buffoon, the profligate, and the bravo. With a sort of 
childish cunning, and such physical faculties as a fantastic 
invention has ascribed to the ogre, he is without a common 
measure of capacity to provide for his own protection, etc." 
Dr. Palfrey, if I am rightly informed, has a great and un- 
conquerable aversion to such freethinkers as Mr. Parker, the 
translator of De Wette on the Old Testament. Yet I recol- 
lect nothing in what I have read of Mr. Parker, nothing in 
Strauss, nothing in any of the neological critics of Germany 
which I have consulted, (and they are not a few), which com- 
pares with this scornful caricature. Bruno Bauer, (whom I 
have not read), if the reviewers fairly represent him, may, 
under the maddening influence of the potions which he is re- 
ported to love too well, have said some things more indeco- 
rous than this. I would hope, however, that such is not the 
case. How Dr. Palfrey can be so displeased with Mr. Parker 
and his associates for thorough rejection - of the divine au- 
thority of the Scriptures, after writing such a passage as this, 
is more than I am able to explain. The writer of the epistle 
to the Hebrews, who classes Samson with such worthies as 
Barak and Jephtha and David and Samuel (Heb. 11: 32), 
must have viewed the character of Samson, taken as a whole, 
in a very different light from that in which the Cambridge 
Professor has placed him. Samson was not without great 
faults ; can it be proved that he had not some conspicuous 
virtues ? His zeal against heathenism and idolatry, at least, 
will not be called in question. 

The book of Judges, however, depends not, for its credit, 
on the judgment of Dr. Palfrey respecting the character of 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. - 153 

Samson. It was, beyond all doubt, among those books which 
Christ and the apostles spoke of as being holy Scriptures. 

The first and second books of Samuel are but one work, 
severed into two parts. The ancient Hebrews always reck- 
oned them but as one book ; and so of Kings and Chronicles. 
They contain the history of Samuel's administration, who was 
the last of the Judges, 1 Sam. i — xxv; the partly contempora- 
neous history of Saul, an account of whose death terminates 
the so-called first book of Samuel ; while the second exhibits 
the history of David's government. 

It is generally conceded, that there is nothing in the idiom 
of these books, which indicates with any certainty a late ori- 
gin. In 1 Chron. 29: 29, it is said, that " the acts of David, 
first and last, are written in the book of Samuel the seer, 
and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of 
Gad the seer." From this passage, many in ancient and in 
modern times have drawn the conclusion, that the so-called 
books of Samuel were the work of these three different in- 
dividuals, 1 Sam. i — xxiv. being from the hand of Samuel, 
and the rest, (containing history after his death), by the other 
prophets just named. The fact that David's death is not 
mentioned at the close of 2 Samuel, would seem to import, 
that these books were written before that event. But I can 
hardly bring myself to believe, that the authorship of these 
books belongs to three different persons. Much more proba- 
ble does it seem to me, that the author made use of the three 
works in question, in compiling his book ; while the concep- 
tion of the plan of the books, and the selection and associa- 
tion of the parts, are the work of one and the same mind. 

De Wette ventures to bestow some faint praise upon these 
books, on the ground that they have so little of the mythical 
in them, and little or nothing of the ritual and Levitical spirit ; 
Einl. § 178 seq. The story of the witch of Endor, however, 
he thinks is an instance of " ideal pragmatism," i. e. a repre- 
sentation in which the author labours to account for certain 
phenomena, the real history of which remains doubtful. The 
apparent predictions in the book, he says, were written post 



154 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

eventum. Withal, too, he says there is much disturbance 
and confusion in these books ; but still, that there is much of 
genuine history in them, and that the narrations are lively 
and true to nature, § 178. The chronology, moreover, he 
pronounces to be imperfect and legendary ; and he avers, al- 
so, that there are some contradictions. But Mr. Parker, his 
translator and commentator, goes still further in his critical 
remarks. ' Some passages savor of anthropomorphize and 
mean conceptions of God ; unworthy actions are attributed to 
him ; there is a sacerdotal spirit in the books ; and a few mi- 
raculous legends are mingled in the story ;' Add. to § 178. 

That different sources from which the writer drew, have 
occasioned some appearances of discrepancy, the attentive 
critical reader will not perhaps deny. Let him compare 
1 Sam. 16: 14—23. 17: 31—40, with 17: 55—18: 5, and he 
will perceive what I mean. The passage in 18: 54 wears 
every appearance of a late and very unskilful interpolation. 
How could David carry the head of Goliath to Jerusalem, 
which came not into possession of the Hebrews for many years 
after this period ? See 2 Sam. 5: 6 seq. A fair investigation 
and candid judgment of the books in question, as it seems to 
me, will however remove most of the alleged objections 
against them. I except, of course, those objections which lie 
against all accounts of miraculous events. But it is not a 
man's critical judgment or skill, which leads him to make ob- 
jections of this nature ; it is his a priori reasonings and his 
theology which move him to object on such a ground. 

At all events no doubt can remain, that these books were 
written long before the Babylonish exile. And this is enough 
for our present purpose. 

The I. and II. Kings (one book in two parts) contain the 
history of the Jewish kings from the reign of Solomon down 
to the exile ; and with this is incorporated the history of the 
ten tribes, from the time of their separation down to that of 
their deportation by the king of Assyria. 

De Wette allows to these books a prophetic origin. He 
says that " the chief object aimed at, is to set forth the effica- 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 155 

ey of the prophets." It is admitted, that there is a uniformi- 
ty of style and a general unity of design. But the neological 
critics, of course, are full of objections against the myths of 
these compositions. Some think the accounts are from mere 
oral and traditional sources ; others, that written documents 
were employed by the redactor as the basis of his work. This 
latter opinion is rendered more probable by the fact, that the 
book of Kings refers by name to several other books, as con- 
taining a more ample account of particular things, than that 
which the author of the books in question has given ; e. g. 
the Book of the Acts of Solomon, 1 Kings 11: 41 ; the Book 
of the Kings of Israel, 1 Kings 14: 19. 16: 5, 20, 27. 22:39; 
and the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Juclah, 1 K. 
15: 7. From the manner in which the writer refers to these, 
it would seem plain that he considered them of the same 
credibility and authenticity as his own book. 

As to the time in which the books before us were written — 
the close, at any rate, must have been written late down in 
the exile ; for 2 Kings 25: 27 — 30 brings the history down 
to the thirty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin. In 
addition to this, the remark in 2 Kings 23: 25 respecting Jo- 
siah, viz. that " there was no king before him like to him . . . 
neither after him arose any like him," shows, that when the 
books were written several kings after Josiah had ai'isen. On 
the whole, there can be no good reason to doubt, that the 
compilation, as it now is, must have been made near the close 
of the exile. The arguments mainly employed by De Wette, 
however, to prove this, amount to nothing in the view of any 
one who believes in the reality of prophetic foresight. He 
says, that the return from exile is mentioned in 1 Kings 8: 
47 ; the destruction of the temple, in 9: 7, 8 ; the dispersion 
of the people, in 14: 15 ; and the Babylonish exile in 2 Kings 
20: 17. All these passages, however, I must regard as mere- 
ly prophetic anticipations of the events in question. But as 
he rejects everything of this nature, so he interprets the pas- 
sages just adverted to as being written post eventum. 

Who the author was, is not known. The Talmud attributes 



156 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

the authorship to Jeremiah. But Jeremiah cannot well be 
supposed to have lived and been active in the prophetic office 
in the thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin's exile, although 
Havernick adopts this view ; for he must then be at least 
some 110 years old. Movers supposes, that Jeremiah wrote 
an older book of Kings, from which most of the present one 
was taken ; De utriusque Vet. Jer. Indole, etc. There can 
be little doubt that, whoever was the author, his work was 
completed before the return from the Babylonish exile. 

The books of Chronicles, as we might naturally expect, 
have been more vigorously assailed, than any other historical 
book of the Old Testament. De Wette made his debut upon 
the stage of historic criticism by an attack upon them, in his 
Kritik der Israel. Geschichte. He has bestowed particular la- 
bour upon them in his Introduction, occupying some ten pages ; 
which his translator and commentator, Mr. Parker, has, with 
a special purpose, spread out into sixty-four pages. 

The contents of the Chronicles are genealogies and Jewish 
history, from David downward to the exile. The history of 
David (1 Chron. x — xxix.) is of course a repetition, in the 
main, of that in the books of Samuel, but diversified particu- 
larly by minute accounts of Levitical arrangements. The his- 
tory of Solomon occupies 2 Chron. i — ix, which stands rela- 
ted in the like manner to that in 1 Kings. The remainder 
is the theocratic history of the kings of Judah, rarely glancing 
at that of the ten tribes. It was evidently the writer's design, 
to make an appropriate history of only the legitimate kings 
of Judah, and of them in particular as they stood related to 
matters of religion and of the priesthood. He brings it down 
to the period of liberation from exile by the proclamation of 
Cyrus; 2 Chron. 36: 21 seq. In 1 Chron. 3: 19—24, is a 
passage of genealogy, which brings us down to the grand- 
children of Zerubbabel, who was the leader of the returning 
exiles. If this passage be genuine, it will bring the book 
down to a period near that in which Nehemiah and Malachi 
lived. The orthography (scriptio plena), and the idiom 
of these books, also contribute to render probable their very 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 157 

late origin. De Wette (§ 189) reckons the union of the 
Chronicles with the Hagiography an evidence of late origin. 
But are the Psalms shown to be all of late origin, by the 
circumstance that they are classed with the Hagiography ? 

The gravest objections which are brought against these- 
books, are founded in their departures from Samuel and' 
Kings, in matters of a historical nature. E. g. when Joab 
numbered the people, i. e. the military force, of Israel, at the 
command of David, it is said in 2 Sam. 2-4: 9, that there were 
800,000 soldiers in Israel, and 500,000 in Judah ; while 
1 Chron. 21: 5 says that the number in Israel was 1,100,000, 
and in Judah 470,000. In 1 Kings 24: 24, David is said to 
have bought of Araunah a threshing-floor and a pair of oxen 
for sacrifice, at the price of fifty shekels of silver; in 1 Chron. 
21: 25, David is said to have given 600 shekels of gold for 
the same. In 2 Kings 8: 26, Ahaziah the son of Jehoram be- 
gins to reign at the age of twenty-two ; according to 2 Chron. 
22: 2 he begins at the age of forty-two, this book thus making 
him two years older than his father, who died at the age of 
forty, 2 Chron. 21: 20. In 1 Kings 5: 16, the overseers of 
temple-work are said to be 3,300 ; in 2 Chron. 2: 2, they are 
estimated at 3,600. In 1 Kings 15: 32, it is said that" there 
was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their 
days ;" in 2 Chron. 14: 1 it is said, that under the same king 
Asa ''the land had rest ten years ;" and after the invasion 
by Zerah the Ethiopian, that M there was no more war unto the 
thirty-fifth year of his [Asa's] reign." In 2 Chron. 14: 2, 3, 
it is said of Asa, that " he did that which was good and right 
in the eyes of the Lord ; for he took away the altars of the 
strange gods, and the high places, and brake down the im- 
ages, and cut down the groves" (comp. 6. 5) ; in 2 Chron. 15: 
17 it is said, that " the high places were not taken away out 
of Israel." Possibly the latter may mean ' out of the land of the 
ten tribes ;' but I cannot think this is probable, for Asa had no 
control over that land. In 1 Kings 7: 15, the two pillars of 
brass for the temple are said to be eighteen cubits in height ; 
14 



158 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

in 2 Chron. 3: 15 they are represented as thirty-five cubits 
high ; and the like in some other cases. 

Besides these and similar discrepancies, the statement of 
numbers occasionally wears the air of something very extraor- 
dinary, E. g. in 2 Chron. 28: 5 seq., which gives an account 
of the invasion of Judah by Pekah king of Israel and Rezin 
king of Syria, it is stated that " Pekah slew 120,000 men of 
Judah in one day, all valiant men." In this connection we 
may also note, that Ahaz was twenty years old when he be- 
gan to reign (2 Chron. 28: 1) ; that in the next year of his 
reign the invasion of Pekah took place, in which (as is said in 
2 Chron. 28: 7) a " mighty man of Ephraim [one of Pekah's 
captains] slew Maaseiah the king's son." How could Ahaz, 
then twenty-one years of age, have a son old enough to bear 
arms ? The implication seems to be such ; and yet the mean- 
ing may simply be, that Pekah's captain destroyed one of 
the royal progeny (not in arms) ; and this is quite possible, 
as marriages often take place in the East, when the husband 
is only some fifteen or sixteen years old. In 2 Chron. 13: 17 
it is stated, that Abijah king of Judah smote of the children 
of Israel 'who were led on by Jeroboam, " 500,000 chosen 
men," in one rencontre. Could the ten tribes have possibly 
furnished such an army as this, from their population and lim- 
its at that time ? The army of Asa with which he went out 
to battle against Zerah the Ethiopian, is said (2 Chron. 14: 
8) to be " 300,000 men out of Judah, and 280,000 out of 
Benjamin, mighty men of valour," i. e. five hundred and 
eighty thousand soldiers from only the tribes of Judah and 
Benjamin. This would require the population of these tribes, 
at that time, to consist of two and a half or three millions at 
least. Could one half of this number have been supported in 
the small tract of land — small at any rate as to fertile land — 
within the borders of Judah and Benjamin ? 1 Chron. 22: 14 
represents David as having collected for the use of the tem- 
ple, 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver; 
which, according to the generally accredited reckoning of 
Richard, the bishop of Peterborough, are equivalent, the gold 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 159 

to 500,000,000 pounds sterling, and the silver to 353 millions.; 
the whole sum amounts to 853 millions of pounds sterling, 
i. e. about 4,265,000,000 dollars. The precious metals must 
have been more plentiful at that time, than they ever have 
been since, to render it possible for the king of a country some 
150 (possibly at that time some 200) miles in length and from 
70 to 90 in breadth, to have amassed such an unexampled 
sum as this. The conquests of David, although somewhat 
extensive, were still limited to countries not rich in the pre- 
cious metals. 

Such are some of the difficulties that meet us in the books 
of Chronicles. But even these are not all. There seems, 
at least at first view, to be a design, on the part of the com- 
piler of these books, to cast into the shade, or to keep out of 
view, some things which would detract from the character of 
the persons who are concerned with them. In the account of 
David's domestic relations (1 Chron. 14: 3), no mention is 
made of his concubines ; which last are mentioned in 2 Sam. 
5: 13. In 2 Sam. 8: 2, David is represented, after conquer- 
ing Moab, as " measuring with two lines to put to death, and 
with one full line to keep alive," i. e. as putting to a violent 
death two thirds of its inhabitants ; in 1 Chron. 18: 3, this 
circumstance is altogether omitted. The Chronicles make no 
mention of David's adultery and murder, in the matter of 
Bathsheba and Uriah, so particularly related in 2 Sam. 11: 2 — 
12: 26. Little or nothing is said in the Chronicles respecting 
David's troubles on account of Ammon, Absalom, and the re- 
bellious Ahithophel and others. Nothing is said in the Chroni- 
cles of Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines, nor of their 
causing him to apostatize ; nothing of his building temples 
for them around Jerusalem to Chemosh and Moloch.; nothing 
of all the disturbances that ensued, caused by Hadad, Jero- 
boam, and others ; all of which are so fully related in 1 Kings 
xi. In respect to the impious and tyrannical Manasseh, the 
book of Kings (2 Kings 21: 16. 24: 4) twice mentions his 
" shedding very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jeru- 
salem from one end to the other ;" all of which the book of 



160 §6. HISTORY OF CAXOX. 

Chronicles omits(2 Chron. xxiii); and moreover, it gives an ac- 
count of Manasseh's penitence, and of his efforts to restore the 
worship of the true God (2 Chron. 24: 11 — 17), all of which 
is omitted in the hook of Kings. Like to these traits are 
many other things in the Chronicles ; and circumstances such 
as these serve to show the peculiar texture of these hooks. 

The genealogies in 1 Chron. i — ix. present a variety of dif- 
ficulties, being quite incomplete in many cases, and apparently 
at variance with some other portions of the Scriptures in oth- 
ers. Indeed it is very difficult to discover the specific object 
of these genealogies, unless indeed it was to show the descent 
of some leading families who had returned from the exile. 

We need not wonder, under these circumstances, that those 
who speak so freely about other historical books of the Old 
Testament, here find occasion to utter much of disapprobation, 
and sometimes even to say what is lacking in decorum. E. g. 
Mr. Parker, in his edition of De Wette, intimates (II. p. 294), 
that the historian who could omit so many notable offences of 
kings, as the author of the Chronicles has done, " must write 
with some other design than that of telling the whole truth." 
He even makes himself merry with some of the alleged mis- 
takes of the Chronicler, (as he calls the author). "An amusing 
mistake occurs," says he (II. p. 268), "in 1 Chron. 11: 23, 
as compared with 2 Sam. 23: 21." The cream of the jest is, 
that in the book of Samuel it is said of Benaiah, that " he slew 
an Egyptian, a man of l'emarkable appearance" (<ix"rg "i^k), 
while the passage in Chronicles says, that " he slew an Egyp- 
tian, a man of great stature, five cubits high." Now what part 
of this it is which Mr. Parker pronounces amusing, I do not 
readily perceive. I can easily see that five cubits = 7£ feet, 
is an uncommon height for a man ; yet this is not without a 
parallel, or rather it is even surpassed, e. g. by the Kentucky 
giant, in our own day. That a man of this height might be 
called a man of aspect (fJS^a BJiK, for ttJi&t is plainly implied 
here), as the writer of the Kings has called him, in a military 
respect, (which is what the passage clearly has in view), there 
is no good reason to deny. The Latin aspectabilis would give 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 161 

the exact meaning ; while Mr. Parker has translated it, re- 
spectable man J That the writer of the Chronicles might choose 
to state with particularity the height of the Egyptian, rather 
than to say (as in the book of Kings) that he was a man of 
aspect, conveys to my mind no impression which is specially 
amusing. I cannot even suppose a mistake on the part of the 
Chronicler, as to the import of nxi^ in Kings. I can only 
see, that one writer meant to characterize the Egyptian as a 
man of remarkable appearance, while the other gives us the 
specific quality which made him remarkable. After all, there 
is something to amuse us in respect to this matter ; and that is, 
that Mr. Parker has translated the passage which means as- 
pectabilis as if it meant venerandus. And this is the criticism, 
then, which looks at the book of Chronicles with scorn ! 

To be brief: De Wette and most of the Neologists in criti-" 
cism who sympathize with him, consider and treat the books 
of the Chronicles as a mere farrago of scraps, made up partly 
from written records, partly from tradition, partly by a su- 
perstitious reverence for the priesthood and the ritual law, 
and partly by the vain-glorious boastings of a Jew in respect 
to the royal race of David and the tribes which adhered to 
the Davidic dynasty. Hence they give little credit indeed to 
the testimony of these books. 

The devout and reverential reader of the Old Testament, 
has, it must be confessed, some difficulties of a serious nature 
to encounter, in regard to such things in the Chronicles as 
have been pointed out. The tyro in matters of sacred criti- 
cism must certainly feel, that he has a somewhat formidable 
task before him ; specially if he adopts the theory of plenary 
verbal inspiration. I will state in a few words what my own 
impressions are ; for I have already dwelt so long on these 
books, that I must not say much more. 

I cannot well doubt, that the Chronicles are the last of all 
the historical books, possibly with the exception of Ezra, Ne- 
hemiah, and Esther. That they were written by some Jew, 
for the use of the renewed Israelitish Commonwealth, and 
that the author was a priest or Levite, seem to me, all things 
14* 



162 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

considered, to be nearly certain. Let any one peruse the 
prophecy of Malachi, written about the same period as the 
Chronicles, and he will find it filled with grievous complaints 
of the neglect and contempt of the Mosaic ritual, exhibited by 
the Jews. The prophet complains that they offer the lame, 
the blind, and the sick, in sacrifice ; that they have snuffed at 
the offerings to the Lord ; that they have robbed God in 
tithes and offerings, besides being guilty of many other sins. 
It was not unnatural that some pious priest, or Levite, or pro- 
phet, should assay to remedy these evils, by giving a particu- 
lar history of past well known and renowned kings, as to the 
efforts which they made to carry the Mosaic institutions into 
practice. Hence the enlarged account of all David's arrange- 
ments in respect to the ark of God, the sacrifices, the priests 
and Levites, the singers and porters of the temple, and the 
like; 1 Chron. xv — xxvii. The same is true in regard to 
Solomon, 2 Chron, i — ix ; in regard to Abijah, 2 Chron. xiii ; 
Asa, ch. xv ; Jehoshaphat, ch. xvii. seq. ; Joash, ch. xxiv ; 
Uzziah, ch. xxvi ; Hezekiah, ch. xxix seq. ; and Josiah, ch. 
xxxiv. A prominence is consequently given to things of this 
nature, which is wanting in the books of Kings, for this was writ- 
ten earlier and in different circumstances. The sacred writers 
of the Old Testament and the New adapt their works to the 
wants of the times in which they live. Why should they not ? 
It lies then upon the face of the books of Chronicles, that they 
were composed with special reference to the state of the times, 
as to the Mosaic worship and rites. This will account for a great 
portion of the differences in the narrations between this and the 
books of Kings. It is equally plain, that the history of the ten 
tribes, the anti-Davidic government, is purposely omitted. The 
writer found so little to his purpose in the examples of the 
kings of Israel, with respect to the Mosaic religion, that he 
chose wholly to omit them. Moreover, as it respects the kings 
of Judah, it is plain that the writer did not purpose to give a 
full history. His work is rather what the Sept. Version names 
it, viz. UaQalsmo^iEva, i. e. Supplement, or things that remain, 
that is, remain to be recorded. The frame-work of his history 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 163 

is of course the same as that of Judah in the books of Kings ; 
but for a particular purpose he has given to it a different fin- 
ishing or costume. It is no more true of Kings and Chroni- 
cles, that what one of them omits is to be considered as fabu- 
lous or unworthy of credit, than it is of the Gospels. Silence 
proves nothing, unless in peculiar cases. There is even noth- 
ing particularly improbable, in all the accounts which the 
Chronicles give us, of the arrangements in respect to religious 
matters made by many of the kings of Judah. 

With these considerations in view, we can easily account 
for the often varying narrations in the Kings and Chronicles. 
It ought no more to offend us, than it offends a believer of the 
Gospels, when he finds such a wonderful variety as there is 
in the style of John and of Luke. Beyond this, however, 
we have seen that there are apparent contradictions between 
the Kings and Chronicles, and some apparent inaccuracies in 
the latter. We cannot refuse to acknowledge this ; for we 
see with our own eyes. It is simply a question of fact, not 
of theological opinion or theory. Facts which are presented 
to us in a record, cannot be altered by any doctrinal theory 
which we may devise or maintain. 

That the present book of Chronicles is in a somewhat im- 
perfect state, I must regard as true. Otherwise, how could 
Amaziah, the youngest son of Jehoram, be made two years 
older than his father? 2 Chron. 21: 5. 22: 2. I am inclined 
to believe, that some of the excessive numbers of men, and of 
the astonishing amount of treasures, have suffered in transcrip- 
tion, or from marginal addenda. Almost all the discrepan- 
cies between Kings and Chronicles, and almost all of the 
seeming excesses in statements, have respect to proper names 
or numbers. These are plainly the most liable of all things 
to error on the part of copyists. If it could be shown that the 
old Hebrew Mss. designated numbers by alphabetical letters, 
as the later Hebrew does, it would be very easy to make out 
the probability of error in transcription, and to account for it. 
But inasmuch as this, though often assumed, has never been 
rendered very probable, we must content ourselves with the 



164 §5. HISTORY OF CANON. 

not improbable supposition, that at least some of the apparent 
errors in question have arisen from transcription or unskilful 
redaction. We cannot prove this, indeed, by appeal to direct 
testimony ; and the contrary of this, moreover, is not capable 
of satisfactory proof. But in such a case as that of the age of 
Amaziah just mentioned, it would be preposterous to suppose 
that the error came from the pen of the author, for it would 
prove him to be destitute of common sense ; a position which 
the rest of the book would not permit us to maintain. The 
like to this might be said of several other apparent errors of 
these books. 

I regard it as more probable, that the statements in Kings 
are in general the more accurate of the two, when there is a 
discrepancy between that work and the book of Chronicles. 
One good reason is, that the book of Kings rarely develops 
an excess in point of numbers. Internal probability is there- 
fore in its favour. 

How far the books of Chronicles, in our Saviour's time, 
were identical with our present books of the same name, it 
would be difficult to show. That these books have in some 
way been tampered with, or in some degree negligently tran- 
scribed, since that period, appears to be not improbable, when 
we look at the history of the Canon. In Josephus' time, the 
Chronicles were arranged or classed with the other historical 
books, (as we shall hereafter see), instead of being where 
they are now, i. e. at the close of the Kethubim, and therefore 
at the end of the Old Testament. What else was done in 
re-editing them, besides changing their place of arrangement, 
we know not. But as they now are, there are certainly, as 
we have seen above, several passages which disagree with 
other parts of the Old Testament, and some which disagree 
with other parts of the Chronicles themselves. 

It does not strike me, that the omissions in detailing the 
sins and weaknesses of David, Solomon, and others, are to 
be much accounted of in the way of objection to these books. 
If the design of the writer, or a promise on his part, had been 
to give the lives of the Jewish kings complete, I see not how 



§ 6. BOOKS ANOXTMOUS. 165 

we could then exempt him from the charge of having per- 
formed his task in an unsatisfactory way, at least of having 
left it very incomplete. But this is evidently not his plan. 
The theocratic policy and efforts of the Jeivish kings are his 
main object. And so far as this is concerned, I am not aware 
that his narrative is open to any serious and well-grounded 
objections. The few particulars of incongruity that we have 
found, amount at the most to nothing which is very important. 

As to the rest, I have examined the almost innumerable 
difficulties and incongruities, suggested by De Wette, and 
presented in English and augmented by Mr. Parker. Very 
many of them, I am fully persuaded, will not stand the test of 
a candid critical scrutiny. Others are more apparent at first 
view, than real. De Wette has made capital for himself out 
of everything, even out of a change or variation in the diction, 
phraseology, etc. So we cannot, or should not, do with the 
Gospels ; so we must not do with the book of Chronicles, if 
we mean to preserve the reputation of being truly candid and 
liberal minded. I will only add, that after all which Keil has 
said in his Versuch uber die Bucher der Chronik, 1883 ; Dah- 
ler, de Lib. Paralip. Auctoritate, 1819 ; and Movers Ueber 
die Chro?iik, 1834; in defence of the books in question, there 
is still need of some other labourer in this field, who will do 
the work more thoroughly. Haver nick is reported to have 
performed this task ; but it has not yet been in my power to 
examine what he has written. 

The book of Euth has plainly for its object, to trace the 
genealogy of David to a source which is honourable. The 
probability seems to be, that it was written during the reign 
of David, or soon after. The variations of the language from 
the usual Hebrew of that period, are not remarkable enough 
to afford any ground of argument for the late age of the book. 
The history which it gives, belongs to the period of the 
Judges ; as is expressly stated in Euth 1: 1. Moreover, " the 
days when the Judges ruled," is spoken of as a period already 
passed by. Earlier than the time of David, therefore, it 
could not have been written ; and as the special reason for 



166 § 6. HISTOKY OF CANON. 

writing it seems to be, to do honour to David in respect to 
his descent, he must have been a king before it was written ; 
for this was the particular inducement to do him honour. 
The character of Boaz and of Ruth is truly noble and ingen- 
uous. It is easy to see, moreover, that the poverty of Ruth 
was not regarded as a matter of any reproach. Riches, in 
those days, at least in the author's view, constituted no part of 
true nobility. The whole picture is a delightful one. The 
simplicity, integrity, and kind feelings of the principal persons 
exhibited by this book, are altogether remarkable in any age 
or country. David had at least some ancestors who were 
nature's noblemen, if not decked with stars and garters. 
That Ruth was a foreigner by birth, is no objection to the 
place assigned her. There can scarcely be a doubt that she 
became a proselyte to Judaism. 

The genealogy, at the close of the book, ends with David. 
The writer of the Chronicles has made use of it in his gene- 
alogy, 1 Chron. 2: 11, 12. This shows that the book was 
extant in his time, and that is sufficient for our present pur- 
pose. 

On account of the period to which the book of Ruth re- 
lates, it is placed in modern times, and probably in more an- 
cient ones, next to the book of Judges ; for we shall see in 
due time, that in the ancient division of the Scriptures, in and 
before Josephus' age, this book was appended to that of the 
Judges. The Talmudic arrangement, which tore it away 
from this connection and placed it among the Kethubim, was 
the result of a later and merely artificial disposition of the 
sacred books. 

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah contain the history of 
the restoration of the Jewish Commonwealth, after the exile. 
In classifying the sacred books, they were usually joined to- 
gether, in ancient times, as one book in two parts ; because 
they both have a relation to the same subject, viz. the rees- 
tablishment of law and order, after the return from the exile. 
I shall, however, consider them separately here. 

The various matters of which the book of Ezra treats, 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 167 

and the Hebrew and Chaldee languages which are employed, 
have led to a great variety of opinion among critics, as to the 
authorship of the book. Chap, i — vi. contain the history of 
the return of the first colony from the exile, and connect 
closely with the end of II. Chronicles. The decree of Cyrus 
(536 B. C), a register of the returning exiles, the hindrances 
to the building of the temple, and the completion of this work in 
the sixth year of Darius the king (515 B. C), form the first 
part of the book of Ezra. The principal Chaldee portion 
of the work comprises 4: 8 — 6: 18. The second part of 
the book gives an account of the immigration of the new col- 
ony under Ezra, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, 457 B. 
C. ; and of course about 79 years after the first company of 
exiles returned under Zerubbabel and Jeshua. The decree 
of Artaxerxes, permitting Ezra's immigration with a colony 
of Jews, is also written in Chaldee, 7: 12 — 26. The rest of 
the book details the efforts and arrangements of Ezra, in re- 
forming the people and the priesthood. 

Evidently the first portion of the book is constituted in 
part by two documents, different from the main narrative of 
the writer of the book. Chap. ii. is a register of those who 
first returned from exile ; which Nehemiah found in a docu- 
ment by itself, and from which he took his copy ; see Neh. 
7: 5, and comp. Neh. 7: 6 — 73 with Ez. ii. The Chaldee 
(4: 8 — 6: 18) seems to have been from another hand than 
that of the principal author of the book in general ; and not 
only the letter to Artaxerxes written by the enemies of the 
Jews, and his answer to the same (4: 11 — 22) are in Chal- 
dee, but also the narrative that follows on as far as 6: 18. In 
the sequel of the book, Ezra speaks sometimes in the first 
person, 7: 27 — 9: 15 ; while chap. 7: 1 — 26 and x. speak of 
him in the third person. 

The last part of the book is occupied with the narration of 
Ezra's efforts to bring about a reformation, in various respects, 
among the Jews ; although its chronology is not distinctly 
marked. For aught that appears, these efforts might all have 
been made in 457 B. C. ; for Ezra came to Jerusalem in the 



168 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

fifth month of that year ; Ez. 7: 8. Twelve years after this, 
when Nehemiah came up to Jerusalem from the Persian 
court, we find Ezra sedulously engaged in the appropriate 
duties of his office as priest and scribe ; Neh. 8: 1 — 6, 9, 13. 
But the history in the book of Ezra seems to comprise only 
the first portion of these 12 years. Whoever wrote the book, 
then, he seems to have written it soon after Ezra had taken 
up his abode in Jerusalem ; for otherwise we should expect 
from the author a further account of Ezra. I think we may 
set it down as nearly certain, that the book was written not 
far from 456 B. C. 

That Ezra himself wrote 7: 27 — 9: 15, is plain from the 
fact that he constantly employs the first person in his narra- 
tive. Whether he wrote 7: 1 — 11 and 10: 1—44, where the 
third person is constantly employed, is more doubtful ; and 
especially so from the circumstance, that in 11: 6, it is said 
of him, that he was " a ready or expert scribe in the law of 
Moses." It seems altogether probable to me, that some of 
Ezra's friends, probably of the prophetic order, compiled the 
book in question from the various documents named above ; 
and that he did this, by prefacing and interweaving remarks 
and narrations of his own. The book has every appearance 
of authenticity, and of course of credibility. No reasonable 
doubt can be critically entertained, of its being joined with 
the Jewish Canon about the period above named. 

The book of Nehemiah purports to be from one and the 
same person. The inscription presents us with the following 
title : " The words of Nehemiah, the son of Hachaliah." 
But the Heb. "nrrt may mean matters, affairs, or concerns, 
as it does in the title to the book of Chronicles. It may be 
regarded then as somewhat uncertain, so far as the inscrip- 
tion is concerned, whether this book is one of those whose 
names designate the author. Still, as all the narration, down 
to chap. 7: 5, employs the first person, so far it is plain that 
all comes from Nehemiah. Then follows the register of the 
names of those who came up with the first colony to Jerusa- 
lem ; plainly a repetition for substance of that which we find 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 169 

in Ezra ii. Yet the discrepancies between these two regis- 
ters, as to numbers in particular cases, is striking. Let the 
reader compare the following names and associated numbers in 
the two registers, viz. Arah, Pahath-Moab, Zattu, Bani (Bin- 
nui, Neh.), Bebai, Azgad, Adonikam, Bigvai, Adin, Hashum, 
Bezai, Jorah (Hariph), Bethlehem and Netophah, Bethel 
and A, Lod etc., Senaah, Asaph, Shallum etc., Delaiah etc., 
— in the whole, nineteen cases in this single register, in which 
the numbers are discrepant in the two copies of it. Yet in Ezra 
2: 64 and Neh. 7: 66, the sum of the whole is said to be 
42,360 — a signal proof that the numbers in one or in both 
copies, have, in this case as in many others, suffered as to 
accuracy by transcription. The sums of gold and silver giv- 
en, on the occasion of colonizing, by the chiefs of the fathers, 
are stated veiy diversely in Ezra 2: 68, 69 and Nehemiah 7: 
70 — 73. Some other and slighter discrepancies occur, in 
the insretion of names in the one, which are omitted in the 
other ; and some still slighter in the mode of writing and pro- 
nouncing the names. The sequel (8: 1 — 10: 39) seems 
plainly to be from another hand, and speaks of Nehemiah in 
the third person as Tirshatha or governor. The register of 
names, in chap xi, of those who lived at Jerusalem ; and in 
chap xii, of those priests who came up from the captivity with 
Zerubbabel ; seems to me to be from one and the same hand ; 
at all events, 12: 31, 38, 40, shows that the writer again is 
Nehemiah himself, who uses the first person. It may be, 
however, that the two registers, in 11: 1 — 12: 26, are merely 
copied by him. Of the same tenor is chap, xiii, which gives 
an account, in the first person, of what Nehemiah did after 
his return a second time from Persia. His first journey to Je- 
rusalem was in 446 B. C, when he had obtained liberty of 
absence for twelve years from Artaxerxes, in the twentieth 
year of his reign ; Neh. 5: 14. In the thirty-second year of the 
same king (434 B. C), Nehemiah returned to Persia, and in 
a few days obtained leave again to go to Jerusalem and pre- 
side there ; Neh. 13: 6. During his absence there had been 
a great falling off among the Jews, as to the observance of 
15 



3 70 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

the law ; and the book ends with a description of his efforts to 
produce a general reformation. 

There is no difficulty in the way of supposing that all the 
matter of this book passed under the eye of Nehemiah, or 
was compiled by him, even if we admit that other composi- 
tions than his own are inserted. It amounts therefore to the 
same thing as his own composition, so far as the credit of the 
book is concerned. The history contained in the book closes 
with 434 B. C, or about that period, and it was therefore 
probably written as early as the book of Malachi, if not some- 
what before it. 

There is indeed one serious difficulty in the genealogy of 
the high priests, 12: 10, 11, 22 ; which is, that (including Je- 
shna who was of Zerubbabel's time, 536 B. C), there are six 
generations registered. Excluding Jeshua, however, as we 
should do in this case, the remaining five generations must 
occupy a period of some 160 to 170 years, extending to some 
376 or 366 years B. C. i. e. nearly to the time when Alexan- 
der the Great came upon the stage of action. The Jaddua of 
Neb. 12: 11, 22, is supposed by many to be the same high 
priest, who went out to meet Alexander, on his approach to 
Jerusalem ; and in fact, the time is so near to that period, that 
one can hardly believe that it is a different person, inasmuch 
as it may easily be supposed that he lived at that period. 
But I could not set down the composition of the book in gen- 
eral to so- late a period, any more than I should be disposed, 
to regard the book of Genesis as of late composition, merely 
because of the late genealogy of the dukes of Edom in Gen. 
xxxvi. The tenor of the book, and the time down to which 
it brings the narration ; the fact that Nehemiah's own hand is 
visible in so much of it, and that there is nothing else besides 
the genealogy in question which betokens a later origin — all 
combine to persuade me, that the pi-otracted genealogy of the 
high priests comes from a subsequent and marginal interpo- 
lation, or from something of the like kind, at a later period. 
Why should a later writer not have continued the history of 
Nehemiah down to the time of his death ? It is against all 
probability, that he would not have done so. 



§6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 171 

One book remains, viz. that of Esther. Of this book 
De Wette, in his usual manner, says : " It violates all his- 
torical probability, and contains the most striking difficulties, 
and many errors in regard to Persian manners," § 198. a. 
One of the main difficulties is, that there are no certain data 
in the book, by which we can settle its chronology, or (in oth- 
er words) that determine which of the Persian kings was 
called Ahasuerus by the writer. That he could not have 
lived before the time of Darius Hystaspis seems to be evident 
from the fact, that it was not until his reign that the Persian 
empire was extended from India to Ethiopia ; to which the 
statement in Esth. 1: 1 alludes. That Darius himself was not 
the Persian king, who issued such an edict against the Jews 
as that described by this book, seems probable from his char- 
acter as known in history, and from his very favorable regard 
for the Jews, as developed in Ezra 5: 6. 6: 15. 

The objections raised against the book are various, and 
some of them, as the text of it now stands, not easily dis- 
posed of. "(1) Ahasuerus gives to all of his high officers a feast 
of half a year ; how could they leave their provinces for so 
long a time ? (2) His command to Vashti, the queen, to ap- 
pear unveiled before the whole company, at .a drinking bout, 
is incredible. (3) That Esther is of Jewish descent seems 
entirely unknown to Ahasuerus, until after the time when 
Hainan's bloody decree was sanctioned ; and still Mordecai is 
represented as a daily attendant at the court, in order to car- 
ry on some correspondence with Esther. (4) Hainan himself 
is a foreigner ; and such could not be prime ministers. (5) 
Mordecai obstinately refuses all courteous respect for him. 
(6) Hainan designs to destroy a whole nation of some two 
millions of people, and this merely because of an affront from 
Mordecai. (7) He offers the king 10,000 talents of silver to 
sign the decree, which is equal to about 17,650,000 dollars ; 
a thing incredible," etc. 

I cannot enter into any discussion here of these and the like 
objections to the book; most of which Eichhorn (§ 509 seq.) 
has satisfactorily answered. In the sequel this subject will 



172 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

receive more attention. I merely observe here that there are 
two or three circumstances related by the book, which one 
finds it difficult to explain in a satisfactory manner. The de- 
cree of Haman for the destruction of the Jews was issued on 
the thirteenth day of the first month in the year (Esth. 3: 12), 
and this decree is not to be executed until the thirteenth day 
of the twelfth month ; Esth. 3: 13. It would seem that Ha- 
man betook himself to the lot, in order to fix upon the proper 
day ; Esth. 3: 7. The difficulty in this case is, to account 
for it that Haman should advertise the whole empire of the 
massacre, eleven months before it was to be perpetrated. 
"What, could be the use," it is asked, "of putting the Jews 
on their guard so long beforehand ? The Sicilian Vespers 
and the massacre of St. Bartholomew were not conducted thus ; 
and Haman must have been as weak as he was wicked, to do 
this." One might suggest in answer to this, that Haman 
probably indulged the hope, that the Jews, through fear, would 
exile themselves from the kingdom. Perhaps this may be 
representing him as more humane than he was ; but even a 
murderous tyrant must be supposed to be apprehensive of 
trouble, from destroying a whole nation that amounted to 
several millions of men, and above all, when he had given the 
intended victims nearly a year's notice of what he was about 
to do. If the decrees of the Persian monarch had not been 
irreversible, I should be quite disposed to believe that the 
whole measure, on the part of Haman, was designed mainly 
to terrify and vex the Jews. But the true solution seems plainly 
to be, that Haman having cast lots for a lucky day, could not 
change it when it was once fixed by the lot. Superstition 
did not permit a change. 

The decree which Mordecai obtained from the king, 
amounted to merely a license that the Jews should arm them- 
selves on the massacre-day, and make defence against any 
assailants. It is said in the book before us, that when the day 
came, the higher officers of the king befriended the Jews 
(Esth. 9: 3) ; which is not improbable, considering that Mor- 
decai was prime minister. According to the narration in 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 173 

Esther, the Jews, on that day, destroyed 500 men in the 
palace itself at Shushan (Esth. 9: 6), and 75,000 in the pro- 
vinces; Esth. 9: 16. On the fourteenth day of Adar (the 
twelfth month), they also slew 300 more in the palace ; Esth. 
9: 18. Yet in all these rencounters, we have no information 
that a single Jew lost his life, or was even wounded. Could 
a massacre of 75,000 Persians take place, without any mu- 
tual slaughter ? And would it be necessary for the Jews to 
destroy so many, when the people of the empire at large seem 
to have been so favourably disposed toward them, as the book 
represents them to be ? It would seem, moreover, that 
" many of the people of the land became Jews," while Mor- 
decai was prime minister or grand Vizier (Esth. 8: 17) ; 
a circumstance, moreover, not at all improbable, considering 
the influence which Mordecai had at court. But that 75,000 
Persians were slaughtered in this rencounter, after eleven 
months' warning and preparation of the parties, and none of 
the Jews destroyed, (the book does not assert the latter, but 
some have supposed it to be implied), is one of those facts 
which can only with difficulty be admitted, unless some mi- 
raculous interposition on the part of heaven should prevent 
the harming of the Jews. But of this the writer has taken no 
notice. 

Some other difficulties press upon the book. There is not 
even once the name of God to be found in it, or any special 
recognition of his holy providence in die whole affair. This is 
altogether the more singular, inasmuch as it has no parallel 
in any part of the Old Testament, unless in the book of Can- 
ticles. All the other- sacred writings of the Jews represent 
God not only as the theoretical, but as the practical, Sovereign 
of the universe, dispensing both good and ill, prosperity and 
adversity. Not so apparently with the book of Esther. Even 
the days of Purim, set apart in commemoration of the deliv- 
erance of the Jews, as related in the book, are to be kept as 
" days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to an- 
other, and of gifts to the poor ;" Esth. 9: 22. This narration, 
omitting as it does all reference to an overruling providence, 
15* 



174 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

shows how transformed as to his style of thinking and writing 
the writer had become, by living in a foreign country ; (for I 
take the author to be a foreign Jew). The fasting and weep- 
ing (ch. iv.) betoken, indeed, a sense of religious dependence ; 
and in 4: 14 there is an evident allusion to the promises of 
preserving the Jewish nation, let the danger be what it might. 
But whatever the writer's reasons were for a uniform silence 
on the subject of religion and of divine interposition, he has 
not given them to us. It is certainly Avith no small difficulty, 
that we can make out reasons satisfactory to our own minds. 
On the supposition that Xerxes was the Ahasuerus named 
in the book of Esther, there is still further difficulty. That the 
same Xerxes, who scourged the sea for carrying away his 
bridge over the Hellespont; who ordered the heads of the 
builders of the bridge to be cut off, because their structure 
could not resist the irresistible tide and storm in the straits 
there ; who slew the eldest son of his friend and generous 
benefactor, Pythias, before his eyes, because he asked for his 
release from the army of Xerxes in which he had five sons ; 
who suspended the headless body of Leonidas on a cross, be- 
cause that with a mere handful of Grecians he had withstood 
many myriads of Persians ; who offered by proclamation a 
great reward to any one who would invent a new pleasure ; — 
that such a man should sanction such a decree as that of Ha- 
inan, is to be sure not very strange. But if, with the great 
mass of modern and recent critics we admit Ahasuerus to 
have been Xerxes, what shall we do with Esth. 2: 5 — 7, which 
tells us that Mordecai was carried away captive from Judea 
with Jehoiachin, in 599 B. C, and that Esther was his cousin ? 
Now Xerxes did not begin his reign until 485 B. C, and the 
third year of that reign, when Vashti the queen was rejected, 
must bring Mordecai to the age of 117, even if his exile took 
place in his infancy. His cousin Esther, moreover, must at 
this time have been nearly a century old ; while the book of 
Esther represents her as a young maiden. How then can we 
admit, with Scaliger, Drusius, Carpzov, Eichhorn, Jahn, Ber- 
tholdt, Gesenius, Havernick, Baumgarten, and others, that 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 175 

Xerxes is the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther ? If we go 
back to Cambyses, and even to Cyrus, we shall, after all, still 
find Mordecai to be some seventy to sixty years old — an age 
hardly congruous with the part which he acts in the book 
before us. If we go still further back, we must seek for 
Ahasuerus among the separate kings of Media or of Persia. 
But we are forbidden to go back, for then we could find nei- 
ther the 127 provinces of the empire (Esth. 1: 1), nor were 
the Jews under the dominion of any Persian or Median king, 
before the time of Cyrus. 

All these difficulties, however, are the result of interpreting 
the text in Esth. 2: 5 — 7, in such a way as seems, at first 
view, to be the most natural and facile. The Hebrew runs 
thus : " There was a Jew in Shushan the palace, and his 
name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shiniei, the 
son of Kish, a Benjamite, Who was carried captive from Je- 
rusalem with the company of captives who were carried into 
exile with Jechoniah king of Judah, who was carried away 
captive by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. And he 
brought up Hadassah, (the same is Esther), who was the 
daughter of his uncle," etc. The question which we may 
naturally raise, is, whether Mordecai is asserted by this text 
to be among the exiles that accompanied Jechoniah (599 B. 
C), or whether this exile is affirmed of Kish the Benjamite. 
The interpretation which adopts the former meaning, is per- 
haps the most facile and natural, in case there is no obstacle 
in the way ; but plainly it is not a necessary one. The who 
(ti;x), at the beginning of v. 6, may refer to the noun imme- 
diately antecedent (Kish), and then we are at liberty to place 
the period of Mordecai just where the genealogy demands. 
The time, reckoned from the exile of Jechoniah in 599 B. 
C. to the seventh year of Xerxes, is about 120 years; and 
this would correspond right well with the four generations 
mentioned in Esth. 2: 5. Why then are we not at liberty to 
adopt this exegesis ? I would not do so merely in order to 
avoid a difficulty ; for we cannot satisfy our own minds in 
that way. But the Hebrew is fairly open to either construe- 



176 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

tion ; and when the question comes up : Which shall we pre- 
fer ? what hinders our adopting that which best agrees with 
the time and circumstances presented in the book ? Even if 
the book of Esther be supposititious, it is still a book belonging 
to the period that soon followed the return from exile, and its 
anonymous author can scarcely be supposed to have made 
Mordecai and Esther contemporary with Jechoniah's exile, 
and at the same time with the seventh year of Xerxes reign, 
or indeed with the reign of any Persian prince from the time 
that Cyrus began to be sole regent of Middle Asia. The 
parachronism is too palpable to be attributed to any one, who 
could write as the author of the book of Esther has done. 

Some of the most serious difficulties, then, are removed by 
the interpretation which I have now suggested. In respect 
to the early publication of Haman's decree, commanding the 
excision of the Jews, I have already made some suggestions. 
And as to the passiveness of the Persians when the day of 
slaughter arrives, and the numbers said to be slain by the 
Jews, while they apparently remained unhurt ; there may be 
facts, unknown to us, which would render these matters alto- 
gether credible. Clearly there is nothing impossible in the 
case. But it is better to confess our ignorance, than merely 
to guess at a ground of explanation, and then proffer it as 
something substantial. 

The reader will perceive, that I have dwelt much longer 
upon the books of Chronicles and that of Esther, than on the 
other books of the Old Testament. I have done so because 
I deemed it to be necessary. Few readers investigate diffi- 
culties of such a nature as these books bring to view ; and 
when they are brought forward by those who doubt or deny 
the claims of the Old Testament to authenticity and genuine- 
ness, most readers feel astounded by them. In presenting 
these and the like matters to the reader, I hope to satisfy his 
mind, that my object is not to carry a point per fas aut nefas. 
Truth needs no pious fraud to support and commend it. If 
the Bible is indeed the word of God, it certainly does not shun 
investigation, but demands it. The example of the noble 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOUS. 177 

Bereans, who searched the Scriptures daily in order to as- 
certain whether what an apostle had preached was true or 
not, is one which is commended in the word of God, and 
worthy to be commended to all who reverence his word. 
Much as my own mind has been sometimes rendered anxious 
by critical doubts and difficulties thrust upon it, yet I have 
never for a moment deemed it best to conceal these difficul- 
ties, or to look away from them merely to get rid of the trou- 
ble of studying and examining. On the same ground I do 
not think it expedient merely to glance at difficulties, suffi- 
ciently to show that one is not altogether ignorant of them, 
and then to dispose of them by a general condemnation of 
everything which approaches minute or doubting inquiry. 
It may be dexterous management in a pleader before a court 
and jury, to conceal the weak parts of his cause, and to keep 
out of sight whatever can be said against his client's interest ; 
but how long will the same jury continue to confide in such a 
pleader's declarations, or in his management of causes, if he 
is wont to do this ? If we, who profess to believe in the di- 
vine authority of the O. Test. Scriptures, decline to examine 
and consider the difficulties which attend a minute and criti- 
cal inquiry into their condition and contents, how can we ex- 
pect to convince those who differ from us and reject them ? 
I do not indeed think it to be the dictate of prudence and 
sound judgment, to anticipate the time and circumstances in 
which we live, and publish to the Avorld doubts and difficulties 
that have not yet come before the minds of the community 
who surround us. But when they do come, it is not sound 
policy to aim at winking them out of sight, nor to treat them 
as altogether unworthy of notice, specially when they are 
apparently founded upon what the sacred text itself seems to 
disclose. But doubts and difficulties have already been pub- 
lished to our religious community, by the works of De Wette 
and of Mr. Norton ; and no silence on oar part will help this 
matter. I accede, in my own judgment, to what the celebrat- 
ed Dr. Bellamy of Connecticut used to say to his theological 
students, in his parting Lecture : " Gentlemen, on the sub= 



178 § 6. HISTORY OF CANON. 

ject of polemics I have one piece of advice to give you ; and 
this is, that you should never raise Satan unless you can lay 
him." But in the present case, I have not raised him ; that 
has been the work of others. "Whether I can lay him, is in- 
deed a serious question, and one which it is not for me to 
decide. 

But to return to our subject \ that the book of Esther re- 
lates a story which is substantially true, there is no good reason 
to doubt. The feast of Purim, celebrated .as a memorial of 
the deliverance of the Hebrews from massacre, has confessed- 
ly been celebrated among the Jews ever since the times of 
the Persian monarchy. Now this is the same evidence that 
some signal deliverance took place, as our celebration of the 
fourth of July is evidence, that our independence as a nation 
was proclaimed on that day. The great numbers of Jews in 
Persia, in the time of Xerxes ; the hatred which foreigners 
have nearly always borne towards them, on the ground of 
their peculiar observances ; and the envy and jealousy that 
would exist among the Persian nobility, when any of them 
were promoted or treated with special favour — are all circum- 
stances which serve to show the possibility, not to say the 
probability, of the things related in the book of Esther. Thex'e 
can be no good ground for doubt, that the book has truth for 
its basis. But the number of Persians slain by the Jews, 
and the amount of money promised to the king by Haman, 
wears an appearance like to that which sometimes belongs to 
numbers in the books of Chronicles. Yet so far as the amount 
of money is concerned, it is not very difficult to believe that 
Haman may have promised so much to the king, on the ground 
that he had liberty to appropriate all the property of the Jews, 
when slain, to his own use ; Esth. 3: 11. Nor is the amount 
so strange a thing. The prime minister of the late emperor 
of China, is said to have amassed more than £25,000,000 
sterling, in jewels, money, and costly furniture and array. 

For myself, if I may be allowed to speak in my own behalf 
on this occasion, I confess that the faith which once has come 
to admit miraculous events, in earlier and in later times, is not 



§ 6. BOOKS ANONYMOtTS. 179 

seriously staggered by the extraordinary or even apparently 
improbable events related in the book of Esther. To any 
one who has become well acquainted with the history of Per- 
sian tyrants, it will be no matter of surprise, that an intoxica- 
ted Xerxes should order his queen to appear unveiled before 
a banqueting company, nor that he should, in a like condition, 
stimulated by favoritism and the love of gain, have signed the 
decree of Haman. The surprise which Ahasuerus manifests, 
when told by Esther of this decree (Esth. 7: 1 — 6), wears very 
much the air of his having signed it in a state when he was 
unconscious of what he did. Whoever has read the history of 
the late Mohammed Aga Khan, Shah of Persia, will readily 
see, that Persian tyrants who could sign such a decree are 
no impossibility. 

The most serious difficulty to a mind which is religiously 
disposed, is the omission, throughout the book of Esther, of 
all mention of God or of his providence. And yet it seems 
to be plain from 4: 14, that Mordecai is acquainted with and 
fully believes in the special promises made in the O. Test. 
Scriptures to the Jewish nation. Nor is there room for rea- 
sonable doubt, that the writer of the book means to present 
the Jews in the light of a people specially favoured and pro- 
tected by heaven. But he has confined himself to mere sim- 
ple narration of facts, and does not undertake to be argumen- 
tative or paraenetic. 

So far as the aesthetics of the book are concerned, it has no 
small claim to merit. There is no narration so long, in any 
part of the Old Testament, which preserves a unity so com- 
pact and unbroken. There is no bombast, no affected pomp 
of diction. All must admit, that the writer has told his story 
with much skill, and made it such as to excite a deep interest 
in the reader. The impression made by the whole is, that 
the Jews, even in their exile, were under the guardian care 
of heaven, and that in the most adverse and threatening cir- 
cumstances, they had abundant reason to trust in God. Such 
an impression, moreover, stood intimately connected with the 
Jewish religion. 



180 § 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 

There are, however, some circumstances brought to view 
in the book, which at first sight appear somewhat revolting to 
the feelings of those who live under the light of the gospel ; 
e. g. Esther's being brought, consentingly as it would seem, 
into the royal harem (2: 8 seq.), and her vengeance in hang- 
ing Hainan's ten dead sons upon the gallows erected for Mor- 
decai (9: 15). But are not these easily accounted for, by the 
state of manners and the low degree of civilization in Persia ? 
We indeed, with our feelings and views, cannot praise, nor 
even approve of, anything like to either of these transactions ; 
but we can see, if we read the ancient work before us in the 
spirit of antiquity, that queen Esther did nothing which she 
believed to be wrong, or judged to be inconsistent with jus- 
tice or decorum. The book, moreover, does not commend 
such things as those in question ; it simply relates them. In 
Persia, the king has a sovereign right to any woman in his 
kingdom ; and in theory, even the sacredness of the harem 
cannot guard it from his entrance. 

Of the importance of the book of Esther, and also of some 
others in the Old Testament, to us at the present time, I in- 
tend to say something hereafter. But for the present, we 
must dismiss the critical history of particular books, in order 
to turn our attention to other circumstances important to the 
accomplishment of the main object in view. 



§ 7. Lost boohs of the Hebrews, some of which appear to have 
been canonical. 

According to the views which have been taken of the com- 
position of the canonical books of the Old Testament, they 
were all in existence as early as 400 years before the Chris- 
tian era. But the question when the Jewish Canon was ac- 
tually completed, has become, in recent criticism, a question 
of great importance, and therefore it must receive a separate 
and distinct investigation. I must solicit the reader's atten- 
tion, for the present, however, to some things necessary in or- 



§ 7. LOST BOOKS OP THE HEBREWS. 181 

der to render more complete our view of the ancient Hebrew 
literature, whether sacred or common. 

The point cannot be decided with certainty as to sevei'al 
of the books alluded to or quoted in the Old Testament, 
whether they were considered as sacred, or not. Some, e. g.. 
the ivories of projjhets, it seems to be quite plain, were re- 
garded as sacred and authoritative. Others again, e. g. Solo- 
mon's works on botany and zoology, and his one thousand and 
five songs (1 Kings 4: 32, 83), we are not bound to regard as 
sacred. But there is a third class, the character of which, as 
we shall soon see, is somewhat doubtful. My design is, 
briefly to mention the works to which the Old Testament re- 
fers, and this in the order in which they occur to the reader 
of our English Version. 

(1) In Nam. 21: 14, the writer appeals, for confirmation of 
his narrative, to the Booh of the Wars of the Lord. The 
title itself seems to import, that the book was of a religious 
cast, and it is not unlikely that it was regarded as sacred, in 
the time of Moses. Still, a reference might be made to it in 
the manner of the Pentateuch, without rendering the point of 
its sacredness certain. It is clear, that it was regarded as a 
book of grave authority. 

(2) The Book of Jasher, i. e. of the upright, seems to have 
been a book of poetical eulogies, written respecting distin- 
guished men, actors in distinguished events. The writer of 
Josh. 10: 12, 13, appeals to it as confirming his narration 
in respect to the standing still of the sun and moon, at the 
command of Joshua. Again, it is appealed to in 2 Sam. 1: 18, 
as exhibiting evidence respecting David's lamentations over 
Saul and Jonathan. The credit of the book must of course 
have been good ; for otherwise the sacred writers had no in- 
ducement to appeal to it. But whether the book was sacred 
or canonical at that time, is not decided satisfactorily by these 
appeals. 

(3) "When Samuel had anointed Saul as king, it is said 
that " he wrote the manner of the kingdom in a book, and 
laid it up before the Lord ;" 1 Sam. 10: 25. Undoubtedly 

16 



182 § 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 

this was authoritative ; but of the book itself we have no fur- 
ther notice or knowledge. It has been called, The Book of 
the Constitution of the Kingdom ; but no name is given to it 
in Scripture. 

(3) Solomon's three thousand Proverbs, his thousand and 
five songs, and his works on natural history (2 Kings 4: 32, 
33), may have in part been sacred. E. g. the present book 
of Proverbs may not improbably contain some of the 3000 
which he spoke. Possibly some of the songs may have been 
sacred ones ; but if they were, we should naturally suppose 
that some of them would have been preserved, with his name 
attached to them. I suppose no one will contend, that Solo- 
mon's works on natural history belonged to the Canon. If 
the Canticles could be shown to be a work of Solomon, with 
any good degree of probability, they might be regarded, per- 
haps, as a part of his Songs. That no more of his poems (if 
any) have been preserved, may not improbably be the result 
of that distinction, which the Jews early made between books 
of a sacred nature and those on other topics. Yet all-destroy- 
ing time has taken from us not a few books once undoubt- 
edly regarded as sacred. 

(4) The book of the Acts of Solomon appears to have 
been a copious history of his reign and achievements ; to 
which reference is made by the sacred writer in 1 Kings 11: 
41, as a standard and authentic work on this subject. 

(5) The hook of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is 
appealed to in 1 Kings 14: 19. 16: 5, 20, 27. 22: 39, as con- 
taining copious accounts of five several Israelitish kings, in 
distinction from those of Judah. 

(6) The book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah is 
indicated, in 1 Kings 15: 7, as a more copious source of the 
history of Abijam a king of Judah. 

(7) The acts of David, first and last, are said in 1 Chron. 
29: 29, to be written in the Book of Samuel the seer, in the 
Book of Nathan the prophet, and in the Book of Gad the seer. 
Such a king as David would naturally have many biog- 
raphers. In this case, three contemporary prophets, it 



§ 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 183 

seems, wrote an account of this extraordinary ruler. Possi- 
bly our present book of Samuel may be one of these, or a 
combination of more than one. 

(8) A copious life of Solomon was also written by Nathan 
the prophet, and Ahijah the Shilonite, and Iddo the seer. 
The two last books are entitled, respectively, prophecy and 
visions ; 2 Chron. 9: 29. 

(9) The acts of Eeboboam were also written by Shemaiah 
the prophet, and by Iddo the seer in a work concerning ge- 
nealogies ; 2 Chron. 12: 15. 

(10) A copious Life of Uzziah was written by Isaiah the 
son of Amoz; 2 Chron. 26: 22. 

(11) The Booh of the Kings of Israel and Judah, appeal- 
ed to in 2 Chron. 28: 26. 35: 27. 36: 8, may possibly be 
our present book of Kings. Yet I do not think this to be 
certain. 

(12) The Beokof Jehu the son of Hanani (see 1 Kings 16: 
1, 7) contained the history of Jehoshaphat ; 2 Cbron. 20: 34. 

(13) A special Life of Hezeldah, written by Isaiah the 
prophet, is mentioned in 2 Chron. 33: 32 ; which is perhaps 
that portion of our present Isaiah contained in chap, xxxvi — 
xxxix. Also the Book of the Kings of Ism-el and Judah is 
mentioned ; which may be our present book of Kings. 

(14) The biography of Manasseh, that wicked king of 
Judah, is said, in 2 Chron. 33: 18, to be written in the Book 
of the Kings of Israel. The n "!n *htt in the same passage 
may mean, and probably does mean, the words of Hozai (a 
prophet) who spake to Manasseh in the name of the Lord. 
What he said is also recorded in the same book of Kings. 
Mr. Parker (I. p. 411) represents these words of Hozai as 
being of themselves a book. 

(15) The Lamentations of Jeremiah over Josiah's untime- 
ly death, 2 Chron. 35: 25, seems plainly to be a different book 
from that which we now have under the like title, and which 
says nothing of Josiah. 

Besides these, mention is made of a book in Ex. 17: 14. 
24: 7 ; in either case it is probably one of the compositions of 



184 § 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 

Moses, which are now embodied in the Pentateuch, to which 
reference is made. In Isa. 34: 16, the Book of the Lord 
seems most naturally to mean, the Scriptures then extant, and 
which reveals the certainty that what God had promised he 
would perform. As to the passages in Isa. 29: 11. 1 Chron. 
4: 22, no particular book is meant, but a book in a genuine 
sense. In the last case, perhaps, no book at all is meant, for 
D^p^riy tF-tt may, and prcbably does, mean ancient matters. 
From this brief sketch of ancient Hebrew writings, no 
longer extant, it appears that many books containing more 
ample histories of all the leading kings of Judah and Israel, 
and more ample biographies of their distinguished men, have 
perished. It is in vain to argue against this ; as Hottinger 
(Thes. Philol. p. 534 seq.) does, and many other strenuous 
Protestants have done. Hottinger assumes the position, that 
God in his providence would not permit a canonical booh to 
be lost ; and that the church, the faithful depositary of the 
divine records, cannot possibly have been so deficient in its 
duty, as to suffer the loss to take place. But what has be- 
come of Paul's (really first) epistle which he wrote to the 
Corinthians, and to which he appeals in 1 Cor. 5: 9 ? "What 
has become of John's letter to the church with which Diotre- 
phes was connected ? 3 John v. 9. I know of no a priori 
reasoning, on such a question, that can satisfy us. The loss 
of a writing is a possible thing ; in a long series of exile and 
misfortune even a probable thing ; and at all events the 
question concerning it is one merely of fact. As such, in the 
present case, it is easily decided. Are the books above 
named now extant ? If they are, nothing is known of them, 
either among Jews or Christians. It will not do to say, as 
Hottinger and others have said, that the very fact of the loss 
proves that the books in question were never a part of the 
Jewish Canon. As to the technical sense of the word canon, 
it was introduced only after the Christian era had advanced 
a considerable period. But the main thing aimed at by em- 
ploying this word, can, as it seems to me, be well predicated 
of many, yea of most, of the lost books in question. What 



§ 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 185 

were these books? Prophecies, or prophetico-historical 
works, the religious annals of the Jewish nation, both as to 
historical and biographical matters. Plainly the writers, as 
a body, were of the order of the prophets. And were not 
books written by Nathan the prophet, and Gad the prophet, 
and Iddo the seer, and Isaiah the prophet, and by others of 
the same office, counted sacred by the Hebrews? "We can 
hardly imagine the contrary. But if any one should hesitate 
to acknowledge this, on the ground that prophets might write 
other books than those which were inspired, still the manner 
of appeal to the toorks in question which are now lost, both in 
Kings and Chronicles, shows beyond cdl reasonable doubt that 
they were regarded as authoritative and sacred. For how 
could a writer remit his readers tor fuller authentic informa- 
tion, to those books which he did not regard as standing on 
the same basis as his own work, in respect to being worthy of 
credit ? Had we now those fuller narratives which are so 
frequently appealed to in the present books of Kings and 
Chronicles, who can well doubt that many a seeming diffi- 
culty, in these abridgments of Jewish history, would be solved 
to our entire satisfaction ? 

I have called these last named works abridgments. In 
truth all the historical books of the Hebrews that we possess, 
wear the appearance of abridgments, if we except perhaps 
the books of Samuel, Euth, and Esther. It is impossible to 
read, with a critical eye, the historical books of the Old Tes- 
tament, without being struck with the palpable difference be- 
tween them and the leading historical works of the Greeks, 
Eomans, and modern nations of Europe. As to chronology, 
there is no general era to which all events are referred, in or- 
der to mark the time when they took place. The localities 
are everywhere supposed to be within the knowledge of the 
reader, with the exception that sometimes the older and the 
more recent names of places are both given. Then as to 
general plan, the exhaustive or all-comprehensive method of 
modern history is a total stranger to the Scriptures. It 
plainly is not the design of the sacred writers to chronicle 
16* 



186 § 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 

civil events because they are civil events and relate to the 
civil and social state of the Hebrew nation, but because they 
are events connected with the theocracy, and are more 
or less connected with the religious developments of that 
nation. The book of Chronicles, so much decried of late, 
has above all others this aspect ; which perhaps is one of the 
reasons why so much critical displeasure has been shown to- 
ward it. Were it not that the name would sound as a novel 
thing, and be considered by some perhaps as a little derogatory 
to the sacred histories, we might name nearly all of them Anec- 
dota Sacra, i. e. brief sketches of historical events, which have a 
connection with sacred things. This is their character through- 
out ; with perhaps the few exceptions already named. The 
tribunal of modern historical criticism would doubtless have 
many a fault to find with them, in respect to historical aes- 
thetics. But this tribunal is one that has been erected by 
scienee, and rhetoric, and the strict method which a logical 
connection demands. The Hebrew compositions cannot 
fairly be tried by this. The Hebrews never had schools of 
science, of rhetoric, or of philosophy. To the technical de- 
mands of these they do not respond. All their compositions 
have a higher end in view, than that of answering the de- 
mands of science or philosophy. The all-pervading element 
in them is that of religion and morality. To be eloquent, to 
be attractive, to be graceful or amusing in narration, seem 
-never to have been objects distinctly before the minds of the 
Hebrew writers. To record what concerned the worship of 
God, the religious state of his people, their chastisements and 
their blessings, and not unfrequently what concerned distin- 
guished individuals among them ; to say or to sing what would 
make the people wiser and better — these are the objects al- 
ways before the minds of these peculiar writers. They have 
followed no models of writing among other nations. All 
that they have produced is of spontaneous growth. But 
is it not a vigorous one? Has it not borne much whole- 
some fruit? Has science, philosophy, rhetoric, the art of 
criticism — all scientific means and cultivation united — pro- 



§ 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 187 

duced compositions of more power, and of higher perfection 
in their kind, than those of the Hebrews ? I know of none. 
I know of no narrations that surpass in interest some of the 
scriptural ones; no epics that make a deeper impression than 
the book of Job and the Apocalypse ; no lyrics that exceed 
those of David and the sons of Ivorah ; no preaching, no 
moral painting, more elevated, graphic, sublime, soul-stirring, 
than that which can be found in the prophets. 

In passing such a judgment on tbese books, I do not and 
would not summon them before the tribunal of occidental criti- 
cism. Asia is one world, Europe and America another. 
Let an Asiatic be tried before his own tribunal. To pass 
just sentence upon him we must enter into his feelings, views, 
methods of reasoning and thinking, and place ourselves in the 
midst of the circumstances which surrounded bim. Then we 
must summon the books of the Hebrews before us ; and if, 
on a fair trial, they are not found to exceed, in the sterling 
qualities of good writing, those produced by any other nation, 
I can only say that my partiality for them has misled me. 

In the mean time, this matter proffers to the mind of a re- 
flecting person some considerations of serious moment. How 
came a people, who never had schools of art, science, rheto- 
ric, or philosophy, to write in such a manner, and to attain to 
such excellence ? This is a problem for the Naturalists or 
Rationalists, who doubt or deny all inspiration ; a problem 
which they have not bitherto satisfactorily solved ; one which 
we may, without any great degree of presumption, believe 
they will not be able to solve. 

But to resume our present theme ; it is not difficult to ac- 
count for the abridged histories of the Hebrews being pre- 
served, while the more copious ones, which have been brought 
to view above, have perished. During the long exile of the 
Jews in Babylonia, they must have been in circumstances 
very unfavorable to the cultivation of letters, or to the preser- 
vation of their former literature, either sacred or common. 
Manuscripts were costly ; the men who could copy them, in 
their state of slavery, must have been few. Under such cir- 



188 § 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 

cumstances, the books already written, being extant in only a 
few copies, and these written upon perishable material, and 
specially the more copious and therefore the more costly books, 
might easily be lost. More particularly may we suppose this 
to have been the case, after the abridged works of Kings and 
Chronicles were compiled. It strikes me that both of these 
works were mainly compiled during the exile, for the very 
purpose of preserving, in a brief and compact form, the memo- 
rabilia of the Jewish history. Such abridgments could be 
copied, and purchased, at a much easier rate than the original 
and more ample works to which they continually refer. The 
very fact that references to ampler sources are so frequent, 
shows the honest and bona fide design of the compilers. They 
were not only satisfied themselves that they composed a faith- 
ful narration, but they were willing that others should go to 
the originals and see for themselves whether such was the 
case. 

If any one is disquieted still with the idea that many of 
the original and more copious sacred books have been lost, 
he would perhaps do well to ask the question : " How large 
would the Scriptures now be, if all the sacred books had been 
preserved ? The apostle John, in apologizing as it were for 
the briefness of his narrative, tells us that he has omitted 
many things which Jesus said and did, because the world would 
not contain {jaoHpai) the books that must be written, if all 
should be narrated. I do not understand xaqijaai here in 
the physical sense, i. e. to afford place for, to afford physical 
room for, but in the tropical sense, viz., that the times would 
not bear with such copiousness, and that therefore it would be 
inexpedient. So of the Jewish historical books. We pos- 
sess abridgments of them — such as are worthy of credit. We 
have before us the main points of their history that stand 
connected with the development of religion and of moral cha- 
racter. We possess that portion of it which is adapted to 
make religious impressions. Curiosity would relish more ; 
but religious exigency calls for no more. The more copious 
histories now lost, once had their day of usefulness. They 



§ 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 189 

were not "written in vain, for the ancient people of God. 
But to make the Scriptures a volume portable, procurable for 
all, and one which may be read by all, may have been one 
design of an overruling providence in permitting so many of 
the more copious books to perish. 

If this be still deemed improbable or impossible by any 
one, we may ask him to explain how or why such errors in the 
book of Chronicles, and in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah, 
(e. g. in regard to the numbers in the register which they 
have respectively recorded, Ez. chap. ii. Neh. chap, vii.), 
have been permitted to creep in and thus deform the sacred 
test. Why have heresies been permitted to come into the 
church ? Why has the church general, and almost without 
exception, been suffered to wander far away from the simple 
and spiritual truths of the gospel, and to substitute rites and 
forms for penitence and faith ? Would it not be easy to show 
by a priori reasoning, (at least as good as that employed to 
show that no sacred books can have been lost), that errors in 
the sacred text or in the church cannot be deemed probable 
or even possible ? Where, it may be asked, are the promises 
of God to his children, and to his church ? What shall be 
said of his assurance that he will teach and guide them in 
the way- of his testimonies, and make his church always a 
pillar and ground of the truth ? These and the like ques- 
tions are very obvious ones, and are much more easily asked 
than answered. The truth seems to be, that some, perhaps 
many, expect too much of a revelation made in ancient times. 
It must be absolutely perfect, in all respects, and moreover 
be immutably preseiwed. And although they have read in 
Paul's epistles that " the Law made nothing perfect," yet 
they seem not to recognize the truth of this in any one par- 
ticular, save in respect to Levitical rites and ceremonies. It 
is my belief, that the gospel has a high preeminence above 
the Law ; but also, that the Law was as really from God 
as the gospel. Why should not the Mosaic institution be 
viewed as being what it actually was, a mere introductory 
dispensation in respect to the gospel ? As such it had its time 



190 § 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 

and place, its means, its regulations, rites, laws, revelations- 
all adapted to accomplish the subordinate objects to which 
they had respect. ^ Viewed in this light, the institutions of 
Moses will bear a thorough examination. The fair question 
in respect to anything belonging to it always is : Is that 
thing adapted to answer the end proposed, in a dispensation 
which is merely prefatory or introductory to a higher and 
more perfect dispensation ? The lost books of the Hebrews 
may have been subservient to the purpose for which they 
were composed ; they doubtless were. But if heaven had 
judged them to be essential to the prosperity and well being 
of Christianity, we may well suppose they would have been 
preserved. They were not judged to be necessary ; at least, 
if events may explain the designs of Providence, this would 
seem to have been the case. There are even some parts of 
our O. Test. Canon, as it now is, which, if they had been 
lost, would not have changed the face of a single doctrine or 
duty of Christianity. Yet, while I readily accede to this 
view of our subject, I should be far from saying that any of 
the books which we have are useless. But on this part of 
the subject, I hope to say something in the sequel, when our 
investigations shall have come to a close. 

I do not pretend that there is nothing mysterious in the 
dispensations of Providence, which have permitted some of 
the sacred books to perish, and others to have been in some 
slight respects marred, in the course of transcription. I am 
well aware that a perpetual miracle in order to preserve the 
Scriptures has not unfrequently been assumed, and zealously 
maintained. But facts contradict this. It is of no use to 
close our eyes against these. We shall neither convince our- 
selves, nor any one else, by such a process. But if I reject 
the Scriptures as a revelation from God on this account, I 
must reject the church as a divine institution on the like ac- 
count. There is not a church on earth, there never has been 
one, in which some of its members did not entertain errone- 
ous or imperfect views of some truth with which religion has 
a more intimate or more remote connection. Yet after all 



§ 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 191 

this is conceded, it remains a truth, that there is, and always 
has been, a real and spiritual church on earth, a spiritual 
kingdom of God among men. There is nothing which is de- 
pendent on the agency and management of erring man, but 
what will sooner or later, in one way or another, receive some 
stain from the hands through which it passes, or be in some 
respect marred by human management. It has been so 
with Christianity itself. It has ■ been and is so in respect 
to the rational and moral powers of man. The Bible, in 
the long and difficult and in some cases even perilous tran- 
sition of it from one age to another, has come to bear some 
traces of having been subjected to a like, i. e. to human, 
care and management. But shall it be urged as a valid ob- 
jection against the god-like nature of reason, that men abuse 
and pervert this faculty ? Is there no evidence that con- 
science is heaven-born, because there are perverted con- 
sciences and seared consciences ? And by virtue of a similar 
process of reasoning, we may also ask : Does it follow that the 
Bible, in its origin, is not a divine book, an authoritative book, 
because, in transmitting some parts of its records for a period 
of more than 3000 years, and in transmitting all of it, even 
the latest books in the New Testament, for a period of some 
1800 years, (most of this time, be it remembered, by mere 
chirography in Mss., before the art of printing was known), 
some things of comparatively small moment have been dis- 
turbed, or by mistake in transcribers and redactors subjected 
to error ? Not one doctrine is changed by all this ; not one 
duty affected ; not even the relation of any one historic event 
has been so disturbed, that the moral impression which it was 
designed to make is in any important degree subverted. 
There is surely nothing short of a perpetual miracle which 
could have prevented some mistakes. But is there any evi- 
dence of such a miracle ? I know of no satisfactory evidence, to 
say the least. I am well aware that the time has been, when 
leading men in the Protestant church maintained the abso- 
lute inviolability of the Scriptures. The Buxtorfs and men 
of that class, gigantic scholars too in their way, did not scru- 



192 § 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 

pie to maintain, that not only all the Hebrew letters were the 
same in all the Mss. the world over, but that even the vowel- 
points and accents were, and always had been, identically the 
same from the time of Moses down to the then present hour. 
Investigation has dissipated this pleasant dream. In the 
Hebrew Mss. that have been examined, some 800,000 various 
readings actually occur, as to the Hebrew consonants. How 
many as to the vowel-points and accents, no man knows. 
And the like to this is true of the New Testament. But at 
the same time it is equally true, that all these taken together, 
do not change or materially affect any important point of doc- 
trine, precept, or even history. A great proportion, indeed 
the mass, of variations in Hebrew Mss., when minutely scan- 
ned, amount to nothing more than the difference in spelling a 
multitude of English words. What matters it as to the mean- 
ing, whether one writes honour or honor, whether he writes 
centre or center ? And what matters it in Hebrew, whether 
one writes Vp or Vlp , lip or ip , T$Kp or Tp^ ? Indeed one 
may travel through the immense desert (so I can hardly help 
naming it) of Kennicott and De Rossi, and (if I may venture 
to speak in homely phrase) not find game enough to be worth 
the hunting. So completely is this chase given up by recent 
critics on the Hebrew Scriptures, that a reference to either 
of these famous collators of Mss., who once created a great 
sensation among philologers through all Europe and America, 
is rarely to be found. So true, cogent, and applicable to the 
case in hand, is the old maxim of critical jurisprudence: De 
minimis non curat lex. 

But still, the ground taken by most of the older Protestant 
writers, in regard to the inviolability of the sacred text, has 
been shown to be altogether untenable. Facts contradict 
their theory ; and there is no arguing against facts. 

"Why, moreover, should the advocates of this antiquated 
view of the subject before us, (for there are not a few of them 
even at the present time, although they are rare among the 
more enlightened part of the religious community), — why 
should they be so strenuous in regard to a thing which is not 



§ 7. LOST BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 193 

only disproved by fact, but altogether unnecessary to an en- 
lightened belief in the divine authority of the Scriptures, or 
to the well-grounded advocacy of this authority ? I am ready 
to say, that their fears about concession here are vain ; their 
hopes of convincing others, who examine critically into mat- 
ters of this kind, are vain ; and, I would add, the confident 
expectations of those who disclaim and oppose the divine au- 
thority of the Scriptures, so far as objections of this nature 
are concerned, are also vain. We freely yield our assent to 
the allegation, that in our present copies of the Scriptures 
there are some discrepancies between different portions of 
them which no learning or ingenuity can reconcile. Huma- 
num est errare. The Bible has passed through the hands of 
erring men for a series of ages ; and even the most sacred 
waters, flowing through a channel that has some impurities in 
it, must contract some stain, or undergo some depreciation. 

But what then ? As I have said once and again, not a 
doctrine is changed, not a duty altered or obscured, not an 
important historical fact perverted. If so, we have no special 
interest in labouring with the Buxtorfs and others to estab- 
lish views of the sacred text, which are contradicted by facts 
that lie upon the very face of the Scriptures. The honesty 
of their purpose, and even the warmth of piety which gave 
birth to it, I readily acknowledge and approve. But zeal 
without adequate knowledge, does not always propose the best 
ends, nor choose the best means to accomplish those ends. 
In the case before us, we may confidently take the position, 
that their theory, or at any rate their mode of maintaining it, 
is destitute of solid support. On the other hand, when Mr. 
Norton, De Wette, or his translator, and a large portion of the 
German critics, assail the Scriptures, particularly the Old Tes- 
tament, on the ground of discrepancies and contradictions, (and 
they habitually do this), we need not say, in reply to them, that 
absolutely no discrepancies and no contradictions exist in our 
present scriptural text ; but we may say truly, at least such 
is the view which I feel constrained to take of the subject, 
that these are so easily accounted for, they amount in the 
17 



194 § 8. PRESERVATION OP THE SACRED BOOKS. 

whole to so few, they are in fact of so little importance, that 
they make nothing of serious import against the claims which 
the matter, the manner, and the character of the Scriptures 
prefer as the stable ground of our belief and confidence and 
obedience. One thing is absolutely certain. There is not 
in the world — there never has been — any such book as the 
Bible. There is none which looks to ends so lofty, so worthy 
of our highest interest and regard. If the Bible be not true, 
the destiny of man still remains enveloped in more than 
Egyptian night. 

§ 8. Manner of preserving the sacred Boohs. ' 

Since the art of printing was discovered in Europe, there 
has been little or no difficulty as to the preservation of valua- 
ble or interesting books. Copies being multiplied by thou- 
sands at a time, and this being repeated at intervals of time, 
such an occurrence as the absolute loss of a valuable book 
has hardly been possible. It is difficult for us who live amidst 
the doings of the printing-press, of Bible Societies, and Tract 
Societies, to make a correct estimate of the state of the an- 
cient Hebrews in regard to the diffusion and preservation of 
written compositions. 

Nothing is clearer, than that the art of writing and even 
of reading, in the time of Moses, and indeed for centuries af- 
terwards, was very limited among the Hebrews. The Shote- 
rim (d^ttfcj), however, a class of officers or magistrates among 
them, one must naturally suppose, were acquainted with the 
art of writing, and of course with reading ; for the verb la© , 
of which the above word is a regular participle, means, both 
in Hebrew and Arabic, to write. The literal translation of 
itJUJ is scriba, yoaiifj-azEvg, scribe. We find this class of men 
among the people in Egypt, Ex. 5: 6 — 19, and in the desert, 
Num. 11: 16. We trace them down to the latest period of 
the Jewish commonwealth; see in 1 Chron. 23: 4. 26: 29. 
2 Chron. 19: 11. 34: 13. We are not, however, to under- 
stand that this class of men were mere copyists or chiro- 



§ 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 195 

re, but magistrates, probably of different gradations, 
who kept written records of the things which they transacted. 
Besides these, the priests, at least some of them, and proba- 
bly some of the Levites, were acquainted with reading and 
writing ; for being the jurisconsults of the nation, one cannot 
well divine how intelligent men among them would think of 
discharging their duties well, without being able to read the 
Law of Moses. 

There must be still less doubt as to the prophets among the 
Hebrews. They were the preachers of the Mosaic religion. 
The office which they performed was, as we have seen in the 
preceding pages, altogether analogous to that of ministers of 
the gospel. Priests neither preached nor prayed, i. e. as public 
teachers and in their official capacity ; but they gave advice, 
when consulted, as to matters of law, of duty, and of conscience. 
Ministers of religion, in the sense of being its public teachers 
and defenders, they were not. Above all the men in the Jew- 
ish community, it behooved the prophets to be acquainted 
with the Mosaic Law, and, from time to time, with such other 
Scriptures as were added to it. The very essence of their 
official duty as preachers of righteousness, consisted in incul- 
cating the doctrines which their sacred books and their holy 
men had taught. 

Still, plain as all this seems to be, there is no very definite 
and certain evidence, that priests and prophets themselves 
always, or even in general, were actually possessed of copies 
of the Mosaic Law ; and so, after the time of David and 
Solomon, in respect to other portions of Scripture written 
during their reigns. Had the Mosaic Law been obeyed by 
all the kings of Judah and Israel, each king must have writ- 
ten out a copy of the Law for himself; for so Deut. 17: 18 
enjoins. That David, whose delight was " to meditate on 
the Law of the Lord by day and by night," complied with 
this requisition, there can be no room for rational doubt. 
Perhaps as little doubt can be entertained respecting Solo- 
mon, who, in the former part of his reign, was much devoted 
to study and to the promotion of the interests of religion. 



196 §8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 

The like was doubtless done by other kings, who were distin- 
guished for their piety and the spirit of obedience to the Law. 

It will be recollected that from Moses to Samuel, (about 
800 years), we scarcely find mention of a prophet. Only one 
makes a momentary appearance in the book of Judges ; Judg. 
6: 8 seq. Almost as little, also, seems to be said concern- 
ing priests, during the same period, as concerning pro- 
phets. But from the time of Samuel down to Malachi, 
there was a succession of prophets in all probability unbroken, 
and priests are not unfrequently brought to view. Were the 
O. Test. Scriptures in their hands ? Were the copies of the 
Law, and other Scriptures, as they arose, so multiplied that 
all who wished could have access to them ? 

A question not devoid of interest; but one which can 
scarcely be decided by any direct testimony within our reach. 
We can reason quite conclusively in respect to the subject, if 
we assume that all classes of the Hebrews, the Shoterim, the 
priests, the Levites, kings and other high officers of State, did 
their duty in regard to seeking the information requisite to 
discharge well and faithfully the functions of their office, un- 
der the Mosaic constitution. But it lies upon the very face of 
the Jewish history, that all of these classes of officers did not 
usually perform the duty of making themselves familiar with 
the Mosaic institutes, except as they gathered them from 
common and traditional report. The frequent lapses of the 
nation into idolatry, which are everywhere recorded, are satis- 
factory proof that the Hebrews were not well instructed in the 
Mosaic laws, and that oftentimes the magistrates who gov- 
erned them must have been ignorant as well as themselves. 
It is impossible to suppose, with any degree of probability, 
that the nation would have so often attached themselves to 
idol-worship, had the light of the then existing Scriptures 
been generally diffused among them. Moses did not make 
provision for schools, nor for early and efficient instruction in 
the Scriptures. Hence, when there were no prophets, (as 
seems to have been the case in the time of the Judges), or 
afterwards when there were but few in comparison with the 



§ 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACKED BOOKS. 197 

wants of the people, it is no wonder that the mass of the na- 
tion fell into a state of the grossest ignorance. The Mosaic 
provision for reading the Law only once in seven years to the 
whole population (Deut. 31: 10 — 13), could not possibly be 
efficient enough to prevent this. Besides, in times of general 
declension from the spirit of piety, and above all in times of 
devotedness to the worship of idols, it was a matter of course 
that this public reading should be neglected. The history of 
circumcision, of the passover, and of other public feasts, shows 
that such was the case in regard to these institutions. In times 
of idolatry, the people would not be duly summoned by the 
magistracy or the Levites to hear the Law ; and if they were, 
they would not listen to the summons. The very fact that 
Moses provided for such a public reading and ordered it, 
shows that he did not expect his written laws to be circu- 
lated in manuscript among the mass of the people. In times 
of alienation from the worship of the true God, when the 
leaders of the people were themselves their misleaders, is it 
rational to suppose, that they would have subjected themselves 
to the trouble and very serious expense of procuring for them- 
selves copies of the Pentateuch ? Few indeed of the kings 
either of Judah or Israel, (probably none of the latter), ever 
took pains to copy the Law ; at least, the history of them 
gives us reason to believe that such was the case. 

A few occasional notices of arrangements made by some of 
the pious kings of Judah, serve to show that the statements 
just made are in all probability correct. The pious Jeho- 
shaphat, in the third year of his reign, sent out, as teaching 
missionaries among his people, some of the princes, Levites, 
and priests, and they went round among all the cities of Ju- 
dah, and carried the book of the law of the Lord with them ; 
2 Chron, 17: 7 — 9. Now clearly if these princes, Levites, 
and priests, had each a copy of the Law, which was their own 
property, and if this were a common thing among them, it 
never could have occurred to the historian to make mention 
of such a circumstance. In giving the history of missionaries 
now, does any one ever think of specifying the fact, that they 
17* 



198 § 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 

cany a lible with them in their journeys ? If not, then does 
it not seem altogether probable, that in the case before us, the 
missionaries were required to take the copy of the Law from 
the temple where it was deposited, in order that they might 
appeal to it in all their public instructions ? Could other cop- 
ies of the Law have been accessible among the Jews, at that 
time, when this copy in the temple was permitted to be taken ? 
It seems, at least, to be very improbable. Who should have 
such copies, if not princes and Levites and priests who at- 
tended on the court, and who were sent on this mission ? 

In the great reformation under Hezekiah, we find an ex- 
press recognition of celebrating a famous passover "according 
to the law of Moses " (2 Chron. 30: 16) ; but there is nothing 
mentioned in this connection which would cast light on the 
subject before us, excepting the fact, that many came to the 
passover unsanctified, and of course unprepared to celebrate it 
in a legal manner ; 2 Chron. 30: 17 — 20. Must not this have 
been in consequence of ignorance respecting the Mosaic law ? 
It seems probable, at least ; and the more so, inasmuch as 
Hezekiah admitted them to the passover, and prayed the 
Lord to forgive their sin of ignorance, which prayer was 
granted. A circumstance this, I may add, which is replete 
with instruction to those, who place too much stress upon the 
rites and forms and externals of religion. 

In Josiah's time, it seems nearly certain that the copies of 
the Law were reduced to one ; at least that no more could be 
found or were accessible. The astonishment of the king and 
his court, yea of the high priest Hilkiah himself who found a 
copy in the temple, is such as to show, that none of these per- 
sons possessed a copy of their own ; 2 Chron. 34: 14 seq. "We 
have already seen, that the fifty-seven years of idolatry under 
the reign of Manasseh and Amon had probably occasioned this 
dearth of copies ; and also that the bitter and bloody persecu- 
tion of that time was probably the cause, why the copy had 
been hid which was found by Josiah. But be this as it may, 
it is clear enough that the supposition of a general circulation 
of the Scriptures in Mss. among the Hebrews before the ex- 



§ 8. PRESERVATION OP THE SACRED BOOKS. 199 

ile, is out of all question. It seems to be almost equally clear, 
moreover, that kings, princes, priests, and Levites, did not 
ordinarily take any pains to possess themselves of a copy of 
the Scriptures. Individuals among all these classes there 
might be, and more probably still among the prophets, and 
some also even in private life, who did possess copies of the 
Law ; I mean that such might be, and occasionally was, in all 
probability the case. But the perishable materials on which 
these copies were written, and the little interest that would be 
felt in them in times of deep and general declension from the 
spirit of true religion, sufficiently account for the speedy loss 
or destruction of most codices once (as we express it) in cir- 
culation. 

That the fear of an entire and utter loss of the Pentateuch, 
after the occurrence already spoken of in the time of Josiah, 
would probably lead to a considerable multiplication of copies, 
there can be no good room to doubt. That the brief reigns of 
Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiakin, and Zedekiah, (only some 
twenty-two years in the whole), before the exile, would de- 
stroy all, or even most, of these codices, cannot be deemed 
very probable. These kings did not persecute in such a fu- 
rious manner as Manasseh had done. When the king of 
Babylon "burnt the house of God, and all the palaces thereof, 
and slew the young men with the sword in the house of the 
sanctuary," (2 Chron. 36: 19, 17), it is not probable that he 
destroyed the sacred books in the temple ; for as the city of 
Jerusalem had sustained a siege of about two years' continu- 
ance, sufficient warning must have been given to priests and 
prophets to take care of those books. 

The story in 2 Mace. 2: 1 seq. respecting the part which 
Jeremiah acted, when the temple was burnt, is very curious ; 
and although mixed with a spicing of fable, in all probability 
has some truth for its basis. The substance of it is, that 
this prophet took some of the holy fire and the book of the 
Law and committed them to the charge of some of the exiles, 
with strict injunction to keep them safely and never neglect 
them. At the same time, (which is the fabulous part of the 



200 § 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 

story), the prophet, moved by a special revelation, commanded 
the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant to follow him to 
mount Sinai, where he hid them, with the altar of incense, in 
a cave, until the time of restoration and prosperity should re- 
turn. The writer appeals to dnoyoaqiai and to yoayrj as con- 
taining this account, vs. 1, 4. He relates moreover what Ne- 
hemiah did in collecting sacred books for the renewed com- 
monwealth of the Jews ; but this belongs to a subsequent part 
of our subject. In respect to this whole matter, it seems al- 
together probable, that such a man as Jeremiah, himself a 
priest and having ready access to the temple, would preserve 
the sacred records deposited there, and secure them against 
destruction. However this may be, it is at least certain, that 
Zerubbabel and Jeshua arranged the ritual of Jewish worship 
according to the Law of Moses, when they came up with the 
first colony of the returning exiles ; Ezra 3: 2. Afterwards, 
when it is related that Ezra came up with a second colony 
(Ez. 7: 1 seq.), he is spoken of as " a ready scribe in the Law 
of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given ;" Ez. 7: 6. 
That the Law, therefore, and probably other scriptural books 
were in the hands of the Jews, i. e. of the literary part of them, 
during the exile, seems quite certain. Private individuals 
doubtless possessed some copies ; and surely such a man as 
Ezra must have had it in his power to be a diligent student 
of them, while he was yet in exile. 

Let us advert, for a moment, to the account which is given 
in the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, of the preservation of 
at least some of the sacred books, as they came from the 
hands of their authors. In Deut. 17: 18, Moses speaks of a 
copy of this Law in a book, to be made by each king with 
his own hand, and then speaks of that book as being before 
the priests the Levites," i. e. under their inspection or guar- 
dian-ship, and of course in the temple. In Deut. 31: 9, it is 
said that " Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the 
priests the sons of Levi," i. e. he committed it to them 
for safe keeping. In Deut. 31: 26, Moses is said to have 
commanded the priests who bore the ark of the covenant, to 



§ 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 201 

" take the book of the Law and put it in the side of the ark 
of the covenant," there to be kept as a permanent witness 
against the Israelites, in case they should break the covenant. 
It is not essential to our present purpose, whether the whole 
of the Pent, or of Deuteronomy, or only a portion of the latter, 
is here designated by the phrase iiirh iTiitiii *t£S ; although no 
one can give a satisfactory reason, why one portion of Deuter- 
onomy should be so preserved and not another. But still, the 
word "i£t3 is employed to designate a writing which is complete 
in itself, whether longer or shorter, and it can hardly mean 
merely extracts from the Law, or a certain small portion of 
it. That there was a book in Moses' time, a record in which 
was written important laws, arrangements, and occurrences, 
and which was deposited by the ark, seems to be nearly cer- 
tain from the manner in which it is so often adverted to ; 
e. g. Moses is commanded (Ex. 17: 14) to write an account 
of the contest with Amalek "i?S2, in the hook (not in a book), 
and of course in some noted or well known book ; in Ex. 24: 
7 it is said, that " he took the book of the covenant and read 
in the audience of the people," which doubtless means the 
Laws in Ex. xx — xxiv ; in Deut. 28: 58, Moses speaks of 
the words of this Law written n : Tfi *i£S2 , lit. in this here book," 
(which is the most exact translation that we can make of the 
phrase in English) ; and in Deut. 23: 61, he speaks of the 
book of this laic ; and in these two latter cases, what he says 
was in an address to the people. To be intelligible, he must 
have referred to a well known book, probably to one which 
was held up before them while he was addressing them. 
This same book, called the book of the Law in Deut. 31: 26, 
was the one which Moses commanded the Levites, who bore 
the ark of the covenant, to take and put by the side, or at the 
side, or on the side (^"2 , a being often used in Hebrew to de- 
note proximate or dependent localities), of the ark of the cov- 
enant. There is. nothing inconsistent with the supposition 
that the book of the Law, i. e. the Pentateuch as a whole, was 
kept in that place, in the assertion made in 1 Kings 8: 9 and 
2 Chron. 5: 10, viz,, that " there was nothing in the ark 



202 § 8. PRESERVATION OP THE SACRED BOOKS. 

[when it was transferred to the sanctuary of the newly built 
temple], save the two tables of stone which Moses put there 
at Horeb." The Hebrew here is "ji'iKS , in the ark, which is 
quite a different phrase from the yhi< 'i&a , on the side of the 
ark, in Deut. 31: 26 ; although De Wette in his Introduction 
has confounded them, and endeavoured to make some capital 
out of this circumstance for his purpose of destructive criti- 
cism. The Epistle to the Hebrews (9: 4) speaks in the same 
way of only the tables of the covenant, i. e. the stone tablets 
on which the ten commandments were engraved, as being in 
the ark; see Ex. 31: 18. 32: 15, 16. 34: 1, 28. Deut. 9: 10, 
and particularly 10: 1 — 5. Josephus repeats the same idea, 
Antiq. VIII. 4. 1, " The ark contained nothing else except 
the two tablets of stone, which preserved the ten command- 
ments spoken by the Lord to Moses, and written upon them 
at Mount Sinai." 

Traces of the fact that the Law of Moses was deposited 
in the sanctuary along with the ark of the covenant, for safe 
keeping, may be found in subsequent parts of the Old 
Testament. In Josh. 24: 26 it is said, that " he wrote these 
words [which most naturally means the two addresses that he 
made to the people near the close of his life, Josh, xxiii. xxiv.] 
in the book of the Law of God ; and he took a great stone 
and set it up there [as witness between him and the people] 
under an oak that was by the sanctuaiy of the Lord ;" in 
other words, he wrote down his solemn addresses and joined 
them to the Pentateuch or words of Moses kept in the sanc- 
tuary. 

Again, in 1 Sam. 10: 25 it is said, that this prophet " told 
the people the manner of the kingdom [of Saul], and wrote 
it "ittZ , in the book;" which of course must mean a well 
known book ; and what other one could this be than " the 
Law of the Lord," to which Joshua had annexed his admoni- 
tions ? The solemnity and importance of the occasion de- 
manded such an authentication as would be made by this cir- 
cumstance, and perpetuity, moreover, would thus be secured 
to the written constitution of the kingdom. 



§ 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 203 

Of course we are prepared by occurrences like these, to 
expect what is related of the Pentateuch in the time of Jo- 
siah, viz., that it was found in the temple ; although in this 
case surely not in its usual place by the side of the ark. It 
had been withdrawn and hidden by some pious hand, to save 
it from the desolating fury of Manasseh. 

Does not, moreover, the passage in Isa. 34: 16 refer to the 
holy bibliotheca in the temple, surnamed the book of the Lord ? 
After predicting various evils to Edom, the prophet says : 
" Seek ye out of the booh (ISO IsSJa) of the Lord, and read ; 
no one of these shall fail." That this expression does not 
refer to what the prophet had himself just uttered, Knobel 
has clearly shown in his Commentary on this book ; although 
Eosenmuller and others have defended this mode of inter- 
pretation. Gesenius supposes him to advert to a collection 
of sacred boohs, with which his own was to be associated. 
That he refers to some prophecy or pi'eclictions in other and 
sacred books, seems to be quite certain from the tenor of the 
passage and the nature of the reasoning. But whether these 
books were a part of our present Canon or not, it would be 
more difficult to say. Still, the phrase booh of the Lord, and 
the certainty of the writer that what was contained therein 
would take place, show that the book in question was a well 
known and definite one, and one also of sacred authority. 
There was therefore, at the period when this was written, a 
collection of sacred writings ; and the expression, booh of the 
Lord, may refer either to the divine origin of the book, or to 
the fact that it was kept where God was supposed to dwell, 
viz. in the inner sanctuary. It is quite possible, moreover, 
that the prophecy referred to, may be virtually contained in 
the declarations of Isaac respecting Esau in Gen. 27: 37 seq., 
so that the Pentateuch itself is the book of the Lord to which 
reference is made. 

That what was done in ancient times, in respect to the 
sacred books of the Hebrews, was done at a later period, after 
the second temple was built, seems to be manifest from vari- 
ous passages in Josephus. Speaking of Moses' bringing wa- 



204 § 8. PRESERVATION OP THE SACRED BOOKS. 

ter from the rock (Antiq. III. 1. 7), he says : " That God 
had foretold this to Moses, Stjloi iv rep tsgrp dvcwEijievrj yQot- 
cprj, the Scripture laid up in the temple shows." Speaking of 
the day being prolonged during the battle of Joshua with the 
five kings (Antiq. V. 1. 17), he says : " This is shown by the 
writings laid up in the temple, dice rcov dvaxeiixevoav iv tcp 
IsQcp yQctfiiA-dzav." This last quotation shows, that the depo- 
sit of books in the temple was not confined to the Pentateuch, 
for it has reference to the book of Joshua. 

Again, Josephus, in describing the triumphal procession of 
Vespasian and Titus at Rome, when the Jewish war had been 
completed, says, that the spoils of the temple were made con- 
spicuous above all the other things carried in the procession, 
and that "last" [and consequently most eminent] "among 
these spoils was borne the Law of the Jews, 6 ts vopog 6 rav 
'Iovdat'av im rovrotg icptnero tav XacpvQoav zelevraTog," Bell. 
Jud. VII. 5. 5. Again (§ 7. ib. he says, that Vespasian erec- 
ted a temple to Peace, and there he deposited the furniture 
of the temple at Jerusalem, while " he commanded to keep 
laid up in the palace their Law [viz. the Law of the Jews], 
and the purple veil of the temple, rbv ds vojiov avzoov xcu rcl 

TlOQCpVQO. tOV GtJHOV YM7 U.71&T d<5 [ICIX CI TTQOaSZa^SV iv tolg flaGl- 

Xswig cino&z\i£vovg qivldtteiv." I caii scarcely doubt that 
in both of these cases the word vofiog (law) comprises, as it 
sometimes does in the usage of other writers of that period, 
the whole of the Jewish Scriptures recognized by Josephus 
as such. The Rabbinical use of itnift = vofxog in such a sense, 
is well known to all Hebrew scholars ; see Buxt. Lex. Tal- 
mud, and Hottinger Thes. Philol. p. 94. If there be any 
doubt of this, it would seem to be dissipated by Josephi Vita, 
§ 75, where he says, that Titus, at his request, " made him a 
present of the sacred books, ^t^h'cov ieqcov skafiov %aQiaa(i£- 
vov Titov." It does not appear with certainty from the con- 
text, whether this copy of the Scriptures was one taken from 
the temple or not ; but on the whole this is the impression 
made upon my mind by reading § 75 throughout. If I am 
not in an error, there was then, at thai time, more than one 



§ 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 205 

copy of the sacred books laid up in the temple ; for the copy 
given to Josephus and retained by him, must be different from 
that which was carried in procession by Vespasian and laid 
up in the temple of Peace. 

It would seem to be a matter of course, that the Jewish 
high priest and Sanhedrim, who were the supreme judges of 
the nation in all matters pertaining to religion and morality,, 
should have kept a copy of the sacred books near at hand, 
i. e. near to the place where they usually held their meetings ; 
which was either in a part of the temple, or in the house of 
the high priest in its neighborhood. If so, what place could 
be so appropriate for those books as the temple ? 

There is other evidence also, of an indirect nature, in re- 
gard to the keeping of the Scriptures, after the return of the 
Jews from exile. We have already seen (p. 81 seq. above),, 
that synagogues, in which the Jewish Scriptures were read, 
in all probability originated soon after that return. In these 
it would seem, if we are to credit Jewish tradition, that only 
the Law of Moses or Pentateuch was at first read, and that 
this custom continued down to the time of Antiochus Epipha- 
nes. That tyrant, in his persecution of the Jews, compelled 
them to destroy all the copies of the Law, which could be 
found ; in particular he commanded, that the public reading 
of the Law of Moses in the synagogue, on the sabbath, should 
be entirely abolished. The reading of the Law in the Syna- 
gogues being thus prohibited on pain of death, the Jews chose 
an adequate number of selections or extracts from the pro- 
phetical books of the Scriptures, as substitutes for them, and 
thus continued their scriptural readings. 

Such is the usual account given of the origin of the Haph- 
taroth, or prophetical lections, which are designated in the 
margin of all the better Hebrew Bibles. Van der Hooght has 
given a catalogue of them at the close of his edition of the 
Hebrew Bible ; marked the corresponding Parashoth or sab- 
batical lections of the Pentateuch, for which the prophetical 
lections, as said above, Avere substituted ; and finally pointed 
out at the same time the difference in the prophetical selec- 
18 



206 § 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 

tions, in twelve cases, between the Jews of southern and those 
of middle and northern Europe. The tradition about the ori- 
gin of these, as stated above, is vouched for and fully stated 
by Elias Levita (Thisbi, ad h. vocem), and admitted by the 
great mass of biblical critics ; among whom are Eichhorn and 
Bertholdt. The latter makes defence of Elias. Still the 
story about the origin of the Haphtaroth is doubted by De 
Wette (Einl. § 80), for doubt falls in with his usual style of 
criticism ; but -it is also called in question by Vitringa, Vet. 
Synag. p. 1007 seq>, and somewhat doubted by Carpzov, 
Crit. Sac. p. 148. The ground of doubt as to the origin of 
the Haphtaroth, is the lack of historical testimony. In 
1 Mace. 1: 56, 57, the writer, in recounting the persecuting 
measures of Antiochus Epiphanes, says that " he bui-ned za 
fiifilia tov vofiov'' and that "wherever fiip.iov dia&)]y.ijg was 
found with any one, or any showed pleasure in the Law, the 
judgment of the king [Antiochus] condemned him to death." 
Carpzov remarks on this, that the object of the tyrant was not 
merely to destroy the Pentateuch, or to stop the sabbatical 
readings in the Synagogue, but to heathenize the Jews, and to 
prohibit all exercise of their religion ; and of course he must 
have laboured to destroy the Prophets as well as the Law. 
Josephus in his narration respecting Antiochus, says that " he 
destroyed all those with whom was found filftlog tsga xal vo\ioq" 
(Antiq. xii. 5. 4) ; which seems to favour the view of Carp- 
zov and Vitringa. 

But however or whatever the origin or the occasion of 
reading the Haphtaroth on the sabbath in the synagogue may 
have been, it matters not as to our present object. In the 
apostles' time the custom of reading them was usual, or rather, 
as we may well suppose, universal among the Jews. Thus 
in Acts 13:15, "after the reading of the Laio and the Prophets," 
(a frequent designation of the O. Test. Scriptures in general), 
the rulers of the synagogue asked Paul and his companions to 
address the assembly. In v. 27 of the same chapter, it is 
said of the persecuting people of Jerusalem, that "they knew 
not the voices of the Prophets which are read every sabbath 



§ 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 207 

day." This puts the matter beyond a question as to the pro- 
phetical books being kept in the synagogues for use ; and if 
they were there, they would of course be in the temple. But 
these passages do not settle the question, how long the prophets 
had been so read. Yet the apostle James, in Acts 15: 21, has 
decided that the custom of reading the Scriptures in this way, at 
least of reading the Law, was in his time quite an ancient one : 
" For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, 
being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." That he 
names only Moses here, results merely, as I apprehend, from 
the nature of the appeal which he makes in the passage. The 
preceding passages which have just been quoted, (Acts 13: 15, 
27), show the exact state of the whole matter at that period. 
Now how long a period may be comprised under the ex ye- 
vecHv uQ'/aiav of James, it would be difficult to say with ex- 
actness. But that a period farther back than that of Antiochus 
(175 — 164 B. C.) is meant, seems to me altogether probable. 
I must therefore, with Vitringa and Carpzov, believe it prob- 
able that the religious zeal of the Jews, at or soon after the 
time of Ezra and Nehemiah, gave birth to the reading of both 
the Law and the Prophets in the synagogues. 

This being conceded, or even so large a period as that which 
reaches back to the time of Antiochus being conceded, for the 
reading of the Prophets in all the synagogues, it will be seen 
at once what effectual provision had been made for the pre- 
servation of the Hebrew Scriptures, after the return from 
Babylon. Such an accident as occurred in regard to the Law 
of Moses in the time of Josiah, was no longer possible. In 
confirmation of the fact, that the Prophets were read in the 
synagogues, (James says, Acts 15: 21, in every noXsi = town 
or village), we may appeal to Luke 4: 17 — 19. Jesus being 
in the sy nagogue at Nazareth is invited to read the Scriptures, 
and the volume of Isaiah is given him, which he opens at 
chap. lxi. and commences reading in it. The suggestion that 
he did this in an extraordinary manner, i. e. merely by virtue 
of his own peculiar authority, is favoured by nothing in the 
n arration of Luke. On the contrary, he is requested to read ; 



208 § 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED ROOKS. 

is directed where, i. e. in what book, he shall read ; and no 
one expresses any offence at the manner, but at the matter of 
his discourse. I understand the Evangelist as saying, that 
Jesus had been accustomed to read in the synagogue, antece- 
dently to this occasion : " he entered according to his custom 
into the synagogue on the day of the sabbath, and stood up to 
read ;" where y.aza to eico&og avrcp may naturally, and I 
doubt not that it does, qualify both clauses. If the action of 
reading had been an unusual one, would the volume of Isaiah 
have been given to him, and all in the synagogue have peace- 
ably and attentively waited for his subsequent discourse ? It 
is true, indeed, that the portion of Isaiah which he read (61: 
1, 2), is not at present included in the Haphtaroth ; for one 
of them ends with the preceding chapter. But this is not an 
argument of any weight to show that the reading of the pas- 
sage in question must be regarded as something singular or 
extraordinary ; for as the Haphtaroth differ (this we have seen 
above) among the Jews of southern and of northern and mid- 
dle Europe, so, in ancient times, Isa. 61: 1, 2, may have been 
included in them. 

It follows from all the preceding considerations, that the 
Law and the Prophets had been read on the sabbath day, in 
every town in Judea, for a long period, £x yerecov aqyumv ; 
and of course, that there must have been some established 
Scriptures from which the selection for reading was made. 
The destruction or even material change of the Scriptures, 
after such a custom had commenced, was put out of all ques- 
tion. The destruction of one copy would only be the loss of 
one out of a great number ; interpolations or alterations in one 
copy, would not affect the others which remained unmutilated. 
Indeed any one who has read the Tractatus Sopherim may 
well believe, that Jewish superstition, if nothing better, would 
have prevented any considerable change in the text of the 
Scriptures at this period. 

It is unnecessary to dwell here on the inquiry, how much, 
or what portion, of the Scriptures were called prophetic. 
We have seen above, that the idea of a prophet, among the 



§ 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 209 

Hebrews, was not confined to those who predicted future 
events, but was extended to all who preached, wrote, or taught 
by divine inspiration. Hence in the division of the Hebrew 
Scriptures, made we know not how long before the Chris- 
tian era, the historical books, as well as those which we now call 
prophetic, were assigned to the prophets. Joshua, Judges, 
I. and II. Samuel, and I. and II. Kings are called triOSa 
fc-orjxi , the first or early prophets. This is a Talmudic ar- 
rangement. We shall see, in the sequel, that Josephus, and 
probably Philo and Jesus Sirachides, include the other his- 
torical books, viz. I. II. Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 
Ruth, and probably Job, among the prophets ; and these 
books, with the others now usually named prophetic among 
us, and by the Hebrews called the later prophets, were all 
comprised under the general appellation of Prophets. The 
Haphtaroth or prophetical Lections extend, therefore, to the 
historical books, as well as to the books now called prophetic 
by us. And when it is said, (as it has often been of late), 
that the Kethubim or Hagiography was a late collection, so 
late that no Lections were made from it, the more ancient 
division of the sacred books is not only overlooked, but the 
fact that the book of Esther has always been publicly read 
in the synagogues, since the events which it commemorates 
took place, at the feast of Purim in the twelfth month, (which 
book is one of the Hagiography, according to the Talmudic 
division of the Scriptures), is ignored or very conveniently 
forgotten. Whatever might have been the reason, on ac- 
count of which the Talmudic Rabbins classed the last named 
historical books with the Kethubim, it was not that they re- 
garded them as uninspired. Nor was the latest composition 
the criterion of what belonged to the Hagiography, as classi- 
fied by them ; for most of the Psalms, the Proverbs, Ruth, 
Job, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, (the two last with the Pro- 
verbs, according to them, from the pen of Solomon, the book 
of Ruth from that of Samuel, and most of the Psalms from 
that of David), were regarded of course as being older than 
a number of the books among both the former and latter 
18* 



210 § 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 

prophets, e. g. Kings, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and 
(I may add) Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Ezekiel. 

According to the later Rabbinical division of the Scrip- 
tures, then, portions of all the three great divisions of the 
sacred books were publicly read in the synagogues, long be- 
fore the Christian era. We can have no doubt, therefore, 
that each and every part of the Jewish Scriptures was de- 
posited in the synagogues respectively, and of course in the . 
temple. 

As to the more ancient Hagiography, viz. Psalms, Pro- 
verbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, (such we shall see is the 
classification of Josephus), I will not undertake to say with 
certainty what was the reason that no Lections for the syna- 
gogues were taken from them. But as there is a correspon- 
dence, real or supposed, between the Lections from the Pen- 
tateuch and those from the Prophets, it would seem probable 
that those who selected these Lections did not find a sat- 
isfactory correspondence in the books just named, and so they 
omitted to select from them ; at least this may be regarded as 
probable in respect to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles. 
In regard to the Psalms, many correspondences as to matter 
might indeed be easily found ; but it should be remembered, 
that the Psalms were very extensively employed in the public 
singing at the synagogue, and needed not to be read in the 
Lections. 

If tradition has any weight in this matter, it would seem to 
be quite plain and certain, that all three parts of the Jewish 
Scriptures were used, as the basis of selection, in the Jewish 
synagogues, long before the Christian era. This usage, we 
cannot reasonably doubt, originated not long after the com- 
plete arrangement of religious matters at Jerusalem, under 
Ezra and Nehemiah. The facility of perpetuating the He- 
brew code in this way, is very obvious. For more than 1800 
years now past, it has been perpetuated in the synagogues, 
in the same way ; and moreover by private copies. The 
custom of individuals having these in possession, so far back 
as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, is clearly adverted to 



§ 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 211 

in 1 Mace. 1: 57, "And whenever the book of the covenant 
was found with any one (izaod tin) . . . the sentence of the 
king inflicted death upon him." The deplorable experience 
of former ages, as to turning away from the true God to the 
worship of idols, had taught the Jewish nation, that " to be 
without knowledge was not good for the soul." Ezra and 
Xehemiah appear to have entertained very enlightened views 
in regard to this subject. Hence the pains taken to read, 
circulate among the people, and inculcate the Scriptures, 
since the second establishment of the Jews in Palestine. 
Hence the departure from the ancient custom of remaining 
at home all day upon the sabbath, and the resort of worship- 
pers and learners to the synagogue. And the consecmence 
of all this was, that the Jews never have relapsed again into 
idolatry ; a few renegades only excepted in the time of Anti- 
ochus, or when under the yoke of some other foreign tyrant. 

To bring our present topic, viz. the preservation of the 
Scriptures, to a close ; I cannot help remarking, that the wis- 
dom of Providence seems to be conspicuous, in directing 
matters so that the Jewish Scriptures were laid up or de- 
posited in the temple. There, constant guardians of them were 
always found, by day and by night. There, of course, the 
mutilation or interpolation of them would be a difficult, if not 
an impossible, thing. "Well has Abarbanel (on Deut. 31: 26) 
said : " God deposited there [in the sanctuary] the book of 
the Law, that it might remain as a testimony faithfully pre- 
served, and that no one might vitiate or mar it [the Scrip- 
tures] ; for no one could act thus basely toward writings 
which were surrounded by the family of priests." The ab- 
solute impossibility of corrupting the sacred books, indeed, 
need not be assumed, and could not well be maintained ; wi- 
the priests, the keepers of them, were not all of them at all 
times good men and true. But the improbability that such 
a thing was done in a place so public and sacred, may well be 
maintained. 

One other remark is naturally suggested by the topic be- 
fore us. This is, that the introduction into such a place of 



212 § 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 

books as sacred and as worthy of being kept there, must usu- 
ally be a thing of more than ordinary deliberation and so- 
lemnity. I cannot well conceive, since the prophets were 
wont to be consulted on all the graver matters of church or 
state, that a book could have been placed there which was 
not sanctioned by their judgment. It matters not whether 
the writer of the book were professionally a prophet, or not. 
There might be occasioned inspiration, in some cases, where 
the subject of it was not, or at least had not been, a prophet. 
But if the advice of a prophet was in fact followed, in de- 
positing any book as sacred in the temple, then that book has 
as much of the authentic in it, as the work of the prophet 
himself would have. That this was so, viz. that the authori- 
ty of prophets was needed and resorted to, in order to give 
any book a claim to be considered as scriptural, would seem 
to be almost conclusively shown by the fact, that when the 
succession of prophets failed, the reception of any more books 
into the Canon of the Old Testament ceased. Indeed, I can 
hardly imagine a case, while the order of prophets continued, 
in which I should deem it probable that any effort could be 
made to add supposititious books, or parts of books, to the 
holy bibliotheca, without detection and exposure by some of 
the prophets, whose special duty it was in all things to watch 
over the interests and preserve the purity of the Mosaic re- 
ligion. 

If I were disposed to bring the usages of other countries, 
in respect to books that were deemed sacred or specially im- 
portant, into comparison with that of the Hebrews, I might 
show the probability of the Hebrew usage from analogy, even 
if no special reference be had to the fact of their supposed in- 
spiration. It is well known, that among the ancient Egyp- 
tians and Babylonians, the priesthood was the literary or 
learned class ; and to them were confided the safe keeping of 
books regarded as holy or very valuable. Most of these were 
composed by persons belonging to the priesthood. It was a 
matter of course that such books, being their own productions, 
should be laid up in the temple where they ministered, for 



§ 8. PRESERVATION OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 213 

safe keeping, and also as a testimonial of honour to them. 
The Greeks called these literary priests of foreign countries, 
t£Qoynaj(jiaT£rt, i- e. sacred scribes. Among themselves, 
moreover, the Greeks had men of the like class, whom they 
named yQafZfzarelg Uqoi or IsQOfiv^fiovsg ; Ael. Hist. An. XL 
10. Aristot. Pol. VI. 8. Demosth. pro Cor. c. 27. Among 
the Romans, also, the most ancient literature, viz. songs and 
annals, was the production of priests ; Niebuhr Rom. Ge- 
schichte, I. p. 247, ed. II. Bahr, Gesch. d. Rom. Lit., pp. 53 
seq., 250 seq. It is no matter of surprise, then, that Strabo 
(Lib. XIV. p. 734, ed. Xyl.) calls temples mvaxo&tjxai, i. e. 
tablet or book-depositaries. In accordance with this is the 
account given of Sanchoniathon, the Phenician historian, 
who, about the time of the Trojan war, or perhaps earlier, 
compiled a work out of temple-archives — a work which was 
translated into Greek by Philo Biblius (c. A. D. 100), in 
nine books, and then was quoted largely by Porphyry, and 
also by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. I. 9). Sanchoniathon him- 
self quotes older writers ; all of which, by the way, has a de- 
cisive bearing on the question about the antiquity of alpha- 
betical writing. Berosus, in the time of Ptolemy Philadel- 
phus (c. 280 B. C), wrote, in three books, the Antiquities of 
Chaldea and Babylonia, the materials of which he drew from 
the archives of the temple of Belus, where he was a priest. 
The kings of Sparta, who were also priests, kept prophetic 
writings in the temple, which had respect to their country ; 
Herod. VI. 57. At Athens, oracles, and secret compacts 
important to the welfare of the city, were kept in the Acro- 
polis, in order to prevent all falsification ; Dinarch. Orat. 
cont. Demosth. 91. 20. Heraclitus deposited his "Work upon 
Nature, in the sanctuary of Diana at Ephesus, in order to 
withdraw it from the eyes of the profane ; Diog. Laert. IX. 
6. So also the Romans kept their Libri Fulgurales in the 
temple of Apollo (Serv. ad Aen. VI. 72) ; their Libri Lintei, 
in the temple of Juno Moneta (Liv. IV. 8. IX. 18) ; the Si- 
byls, priestesses of Apollo, kept their Carmina in the Capi- 
tol. ; Xiebuhr, Rom. Geschichte, I. p. 256 seq. 



214 § 9. GENUINENESS OF OLD TESTAMENT. 

A practice of this kind could hardly have become so gen- 
eral, without some obvious reasons for it. In all cases of this 
nature it is quite plain, that the sacredness of the place was 
relied on as likely to secure the inviolability of the books ; 
and the permanent structure of the building was also relied 
on, as affording good assurance of preservation. In the case 
of the Hebrews, many reasons combined to induce them to 
institute and keep up such a usage. The priests were the 
masters of the ritual, which was exceedingly minute and cir- 
cumstantial ; and they were also the jurisconsults and eccle- 
siastical judges of the nation. The necessity of having the 
code of laws always at hand, would compel them to have 
temple-archives. That they did so, admits of no reasonable 
doubt. 



§ 9. General Considerations respecting the Genuineness of 
the boohs in the Old Testament Canon. 

I have now gone through with some account of the books 
comprised in the Canon of the Old Testament, in regard to 
their origin and authorship, and also in respect to the man- 
ner in which they were preserved in the early ages. It may 
not be improper to introduce, at this juncture, a few consid- 
erations of a general nature, in regard to the collection of 
books which we name the Old Testament. 

Whoever is acquainted with the works of the late J. G. 
Eichhorn of Gottingen, knows full well, that for some thirty 
years he was the sun of the neological firmament. Doubt- 
less his writings, many of them being at the same time both pop- 
ular and learned, did more than those of any other person of 
his time, to bring forward and consummate the great revolution 
in theology and criticism, which has taken place in Germany 
and the bordering countries. Such a man no one will suspect 
of orthodox prejudice. All his feelings and his writings were 
alien enough from this. Still, on mere subjects of critique 
and of aesthetics, he was usually a candid and fair minded 
man. At all events he rarely says anything that is not worth 



§ 9. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 215 

listening to, and he may put in a just claim at least to a re- 
spectful attention. 

In his Introduction to the Old Testament, (3d edit. § 12 
seq.), he has given his views of the genuineness of the sa- 
cred books in general ; and he has expressed them in such a 
way, that I have thought it on the whole better to employ his 
words than my own, in reference to the topic under consider- 
ation. If I am suspected of being jiiratus in verba magistri, 
as doubtless I may be by some who do not know me, he at 
least is removed far enough from all possible suspicion of this 
sort. If the Destructives will not listen to my suggestions be- 
cause, as they say, I must talk orthodoxty, at least they ought 
to listen to him, who claims so near a relationship to them. 

Having described the general nature, names, and order of 
the Old Testament books, Eichhorn, proceeds as follows : 

I. Tliey do not arise from the forgery of any one individual. 

Whoever is endowed with adequate knowledge, and investi- 
gates with impartiality the question, ivhether the writings of the 
Old Testament are genuine, must surely answer it in the affirma- 
tive. No one deceiver can have forged them all — this eveiy 
page of the Old Testament proclaims. What a variety in language 
and expression ! Isaiah does not write like Moses ; nor Jeremiah 
like Ezekiel ; and between these and every one of the Minor 
Prophets a great gulf of style is fixed. The grammatical edifice 
of language in Moses, has much that is peculiar ; in the book of 
Judges occur provincialisms and barbarisms. Isaiah pours forth 
words already formed in a new shape ; Jeremiah and Ezekiel are 
full of Chaldaisms. In a word, when one proceeds from writers 
who are to be assigned to early periods of time, to those which 
are later, he finds in the language a gradual decline, until at last 
it sinks down into mere Chaldaic turns of expression. 

Then come next the discrepancies in the circle of ideas and 
of images. The stringed instruments sound aloud when touched 
by Moses and Isaiah ; soft is the tone when David handles 
them. Solomon's Muse shines forth in all the splendour 
of a most luxurious court ; but her sister in simple attire wan- 
ders, with David, by the brooks and the river banks, in the fields 
and among 'the herds. One poet is original, like Isaiah, Joel, 
Hahakkuk; another copies, like Ezekiel. One roams in the 
untrodden path of genius ; another glides along the way which 



216 § 9. GENUINENESS OF OLD TESTAMENT. 

his predecessors have trodden. From one issue rays of learn- 
ing ; whilst his neighbor has not been caught by one spark of 
literature. In the oldest writers strong Egyptian colours glimmer 
through and through ; in their successors they become fainter 
and fainter, until at last they entirely disappear. 

Finally, there is in manners and customs the finest gradation. 
At first, all is simple and natural, like to what we see in Homer, 
and among the Bedouin Arabs even at the present time ; but 
this noble simplicity gradually loses itself in luxury and effemi- 
nacy, and vanishes at last in the splendid court of Solomon. 

Nowhere is there a sudden leap ; everywhere the progress is 
gradual. JYo?ie but ignorant or thoughtless doubters can suppose ■ 
the Old Testament to have been forged by one deceiver. 

The colouring which the painter has here employed is vi- 
vid, but the objects are true and real, and are not formed by 
his fancy. It is impossible to read the Hebrew Scriptures, 
with the exercise of any discriminating judgment and aesthe- 
tical feeling, without acceding in the main to what Eichhorn 
has stated. Thousands of nice touches and dashes of light 
and shade, in the original objects, are lost in our English ver- 
sion, where all are mingled together, and melted so as to be- 
come one mass in the Anglo-Saxon crucible. But as to the 
critical reader of the Hebreiv — if he has one spark of aesthe- 
tical fire in him, or if he carries along with him even the 
feeblest torch of discrimination, he must accede to the truth- 
fulness and the sound judgment of Eichhorn, as to this matter 
in general. A forgery of all these books by one person, 
would be a greater miracle than any which the books have re- 
lated. But let us join again the company of the Gottingen 
Professor : 

IL They are not the forgery o/"maj\t deceivers. 

' But perhaps,' some one may reply, 'perhaps many forgers have 
made common cause, and at the same time, in some later period, 
have got up the books in question.' — But how could they forge in 
a way so entirely conformed to the progress of the human under- 
standing ? And was it possible in later times to create the language 
of Moses ? This surpasses all human powers. Finally, one 
writer always supposes the existence of another. They could not 



§ 9. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 217 

then all have arisen at the same time ; they must have existed 
successively. 

" Perhaps then," it may be further said, " such forgers arose 
at different times, who continued onward, in the introduction of 
supposititious writings, from the place where their deceitful 
predecessors had stopped. In this way may all the references 
to preceding writers be explained ; in this way may we explain 
the striking gradation that exists, in all its parts." 

But, (1) How was it. possible that no one should have discov- 
ered the trick, exposed it, and put a brand upon the deceiver, in 
order that posterity might be secured against injury ? How could 
a whole nation be often deceived, and at different periods ? 
(2) What design could such a deceiver have had in view ? Did 
he aim at eulogizing the Hebrew nation ? Then are his eulogies 
the severest satires ; for according to the Old Testament, the He- 
brew nation have acted a very degrading part. Or, did he mean 
to degrade them ? In this case, how could he force his books 
upon the very people whom they defamed, and the story of whose 
being trodden under foot by foreign nations is told in plain blunt 
words ? 

These remarks seem to me to be equally just with the pre- 
ceding ones. A series of forgers, in such a succession of ages, 
all developing an intimate acquaintance with predecessors, 
and still true to their own particular age in all their charac- 
teristic features ! And a nation distinguished above all others 
for activity and shrewdness, tamely receiving and submitting 
to all these impositions ! The thing is unheard of; it is im- 
probable ; nay, it is absolutely impossible, in the common course 
of things. Impostors and forgers write Isaiah, and Joel, and 
Habakkuk, and Nahum, and Job, and the Psalms ? It is im- 
possible. It is altogether more incredible than any so-called 
myth in all the Old Testament. The story of Jonah and of 
Samson, which have set in motion the whole circle of obstrepe- 
rous and vituperative criticism, is a matter quite within the 
reach of ordinary faith, in comparison with such a figment as 
this. 

I must solicit the attention of the reader to one point in 
particular, to which Eichhorn has adverted, and which is pe- 
culiarly characteristic of the writers of the Old Testament. 
It is this, viz., that they disclose the faults as well as the vir- 
19 



218 § 9. GENUINENESS OP OLD TESTAMENT. 

tues of men whom they hold up to view, and of the people to 
whom they belong. What shall we say of Adam, Noah, 
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses even, David, Solomon, Asa, 
and others, in every way so conspicuous as ancestors or as 
kings of the Jewish nation ? Is there one whose faults are 
not unveiled? One even whose weaknesses are not re- 
vealed ? And what can we say of the whole history ? — the 
history of God's chosen people, distinguished from all the na- 
tions of the earth — the posterity of Abraham — the nation " to 
whom belongs the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, 
and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the 
promises ?" Is there a history on earth of any people, (unless 
it be some caricature sketched by the hand of an enemy), 
which is half so full of narrations that respect their perverse- 
ness, and disobedience, and rebellion, and gross idolatry and 
immorality? Where is there such a history ? Who wrote it? 
Or if such an one exists, where is there an account of its be- 
ing received by the very people whom it characterizes, and 
regarded as a book replete with truths that are divine ? The 
challenge to produce it, may be fearlessly made. The result 
is beyond a question. 

Will any one explain to me, now, how such a matter as the 
reception of the Jewish Scriptures as sacred was brought about,. 
in the natural course of things ? The historians and the pro- 
phets, one and all, charging the nation with ingratitude and 
rebellion, and threatening them with subjugation and exile, 
with sword and famine and pestilence — and yet these histo- 
rians and prophets admitted as counsellors and guides, and 
their works canonized! There is something of the extraordina- 
ry in all this, which is no myth, to say the least. Naturalists 
are bound to untie the knot ; we cannot permit them to cut it. 

But when one adds to all this the consideration of the mat- 
ter as connected with forgery and imposture, it becomes quite 
unendurable. Forgers and impostors so elevated and honoured 
for characterizing a people in such a way, as must cause the 
cheek of every ingenuous Hebrew to blush for his nation ! 
Is there nothing mythic in this ? Men too of such a stamp as 



§ 9. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 219 

forgers and impostors, filled with overflowing zeal on all occa- 
sions for the worship and honour and glory of the true God, 
and for the holiness and benevolence and justice and integrity 
of the Hebrew nation ? Is this the character of men of such a 
stamp ? It is a downright contradiction of all that belongs to 
the history of our race. It is neither more nor less than a 
moral impossibility. a Quodcunque ostendis mihi sic, incredu- 
lus odi." 

Eomancers have in view the exaltation of their hero. Even 
the gravest and most tasteful of them scarcely glance at a fault. 
How has Xenophon presented his Cyrus ; Homer his Achil- 
les ; Virgil his Aeneas ? Whatever we, judging by our stand- 
ards, may find in them which is faulty, it was not the inten- 
tion of these respective writers to hold up any faults to view. 
Is it so with the picture of David, in the book of Kings ? So 
with the picture of even " the wisest of men ?" And if it be 
said that the books of Chronicles have kept the faults of these 
distinguished personages out of view, the reply is easy : The 
story was already told in the book of Kings, and the Chronicler 
had in view principally what these Jewish monarchs did to ac- 
commodate, arrange, and complete the worship of God in the 
manner prescribed by Moses. 

No ; the histories of the Jews are unlike those of all other 
nations. God and his honour and worship and ordinances are 
the nucleus of them all. Men — the whole nation — are but 
secondary actors in this great drama. A David and a Solo- 
mon come before the tribunal of the historian, at his bidding, 
laying aside their crowns and their heroism and their wisdom, 
and standing there to be judged for their vices as impartially 
as the meanest subject in their kingdom. Is this so else- 
where, and in respect to men whose virtues are preeminent ? 
I cannot find it. 

How then was all this brought about ? Not by forgers and 
impostors ; not by the ordinary taetics of national historians 
and the writers of memoirs. There is an honesty, an integ- 
rity, a boldness, an independence, a love of truth, and a hatred 
of sin in every form, Avhich stands out to view so prominently 



220 § 9. GENUINENESS OF OLD TESTAMENT. 

in all the historians and prophets of the Hebrews, that I feel 
compelled to say : The hand of the Lord is here ; his Spirit 
breathed into these writers the breath of a piety which could 
not die ; it kindled a flame in their breasts, whose light all the 
surrounding darkness could not extinguish. 

But I must desist. Once more then let us listen to the 
former coryphaeus of Neology. He gives us some diagnos- 
tics by which we may judge in respect to the genuineness of 
the books in question, § 18. 

The Old Testament bears all the marks of genuineness en- 
stamped upon it. (1) The very same grounds which are avail- 
able in a contest for Homer, establish the genuineness of all and 
particular the books of the Old Testament. Why should one 
deny to these the equity which he extends to heathen writers ? 
If a profane writer plants himself in some particular age and 
country, and if all the external and internal circumstances of his 
book accord with this, no impartial inquirer refuses to acknow- 
ledge him. Yea, one does not hesitate at all to determine the 
uncertain age of any writer, by internal arguments drawn from 
liis woiks. Why should not tbe critical inquirer respecting the 
Bible, walk in the same path ? 

(2) No one has yet, with any good grounds, been able to over- 
throw the integrity and credibility of the Old Testament. On 
the contrary, eveiy discovery in ancient literature has hitherto 
only served for the confirmation of the Hebrew Scriptures. No 
one has shown, that any writer of the Old Testament has ex- 
hibited a style, or knowledge, or introduced circumstantial mat- 
ters, which are not appropriate to the age assigned to him. 

(3) In brief, all the books of the Old Testament, which bear 
the names of their authors, are mai-ked with the stamp of integ- 
rity on the part of these authors. And with respect to the books 
that are anonymous, internal grounds demonstrate that we must 
regard them as genuine. The book of Joshua, for example, 
whose author is unknown, goes so deep into the detail of the 
most ancient geography, that a forger must have wrought mira- 
cle upon miracle, in order to put himself in a condition so as to 
compose it. 

Let one examine this matter in a discriminating way and 
without prejudice, and I am certain that he must convince him^ 
self of the integrity of the Old Testament. 

Eichhorn goes on, in the sequel, to show, that even on the 



§ 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 221 

ground that new accessions have been made to some of the 
books, and that several of them are compounded of various 
authors, no argument of any force can be drawn from this 
source, to confront the allegation of integrity. Such things 
have happened to most of the early writers among other na- 
tions. Not a few books of the Scriptures are professedly 
drawn from other sources ; and others not professedly so, ex- 
hibit internal marks of the fact. But a book compounded in 
this way may be as genuine and worthy of credit, as any oth- 
er book. 

Thus thought and wrote the great leader of the new array, 
in the war against the divine authority and obligation of the 
Scriptures. With him, when writing here, the question was 
one merely of critical judgment and feeling. Nobly has he 
managed the cause of what I believe to be sound criticism, 
and justly has he decided it. With all his freethinking and 
independence of mind, he is left, in the race of neological 
criticism, immeasurably behind De Wette, Ewald, Lengerke, 
Mr. Norton, and their compeers. 

Leaving all theological bearings of our matter out of ques- 
tion for the present, I do not see how, as fair-minded critics 
and exegetes, we can refuse to adopt the sentiments of Eich- 
horn, as exhibited above. I would not undertake to prove, 
that all which this writer has published will harmonize with 
these views. But I am gratified to have it in my power to 
express, in language borrowed from him, the views which I 
entertain in respect to this very important subject. 

§ 10. Time ichen the Canon of the Old Testament was 
completed. 

This has, in recent times, become a much contested ques- 
tion. The criticism that has been moving on in the wake of 
Wolf, Heyne, and their compeers, (who discovered that Ho- 
mer's Iliad and Odyssey are nothing but a mere farrago of 
many songs composed in different ages and countries, and 
that the art of alphabetic writing was unknown in the time of 
19* 



222 § 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 

Homer, and of course in the time of Moses), has made the 
like discoveries in regard to almost all the books of the Old 
Testament. According to recent critics, every book of the Old 
Testament, with the exception of Ruth, Esther, possibly Can- 
ticles (but here they differ), Ezekiel, and some of the minor 
prophets, is a patch-work of cloth and colours of all textures 
and all varieties. The time in which most of these books 
were composed, was, according to them, at or after, in some 
cases long after, the Babylonish exile. In particular, the 
book of Daniel is placed deep down, even into the time of 
the Maccabees, i. e. about 160 — 140 B. C. ; as also some of 
the Psalms, and not improbably various other portions of 
books the body of which may be older. The question in re- 
spect to this matter is one of deep interest to sacred criticism ; 
although it would not be very important to my present main 
purpose, which is to show what that canon of Old Testament 
books consisted of, which was sanctioned by Christ and his 
apostles. Even the most loose of the so called liberal critics 
■do not pretend that any of the Old Testament books have 
been added to the canon since the commencement of the 
Christian era ; so that, come into being when or how they 
may, if they existed before the Christian era, and were sanc- 
tioned as of divine authority by the author himself of Chris- 
tianity, and by his apostles, it would be enough for my spe- 
cial purpose. But as I said at commencement of this trea- 
tise, I have a more general object in view, as well as the par- 
ticular one just named ; and this is, to give the outlines of 
the critical history of the Old Testament Canon in general. 
To do this, it is indispensable to investigate, with some par- 
ticularity, the point which is brought before us by the head- 
ing to the present section. 

I begin with the testimony of Josephus in relation to the 
matter in question, because, although it is not the most an- 
cient, it is still the most definite and particular that can be 
found in any writer of the more remote antiquity. It is found 
in his work Contra Apionem, against whom he is defending 
the credibility and authenticity of the Hebrew Scriptures. 



§ 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 223 

After appealing to the agreement between profane and Old 
Testament history as to many important facts related in the 
Hebrew Scriptures, he then goes on to express himself as 
follows : 

" We have not a countless number of books, discordant and 
arrayed against each other; but ouly two and twenty books, con- 
taining the history of every age, which are justly accredited as 
divine [old editions of Josephus read merely : " which are just- 
ly accredited" — &sla comes from Eusebius' transcript of Jo- 
sephus in Ecc. Hist. III. 10] ; and of these,^e belong to Moses, 
which contain both the laws and the history of the generations 
of men until his death. This period lacks but little of 3000 
years. From the death of Moses, moreover, until the reign of 
Artaxerxes, [Euseb. — ' from the death of Moses to that of Ar- 
taxerxes' — and so most of the Codices omitting otg%ijg, reign], 
king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets who followed 
Moses have described the things which were done during the 
age of each one respectively, in thirteen books. The remaining 
four contain hymns to God, and rules of life for men. From 
the time of Artaxerxes, moreover, until our present period, all 
occurrences have been written down ; but they are not regard- 
ed as entitled to the like credit with those ivhich precede them, 
because there was no certain succession of prophets. Fact has 
shown what confidence we place in our own writings. For al- 
though so many ages have passed away, no one has dared to 
add to them, nor to take anything from them, nor to make al- 
terations. In all Jews it is implanted, even from their birth, to 
regard them as being the instructions of God, and to abide 
steadfastly by them, and if it be necessary to die gladly for them." 
(For die original Greek, see Appendix No. III.) 

Of the historian from whom this passage is taken, it is not 
necessary to say much. Josephus was perhaps more distin- 
guished and learned, than any other man of his time belong- 
ing to the Jewish nation. His father was a priest in the regu- 
lar order of the twenty-four courses ordained by David ; and 
his mother was a lineal descendant of the Maccabaean kings, 
who also were priests. His father Matthias was a man dis- 
tinguished not only for his noble birth, but for his praisewor- 
thy deeds. To his son Joseph or Josephus, born about A. 
D. 37, he gave the best education in his power ; and so ef- 



224 § 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 

fectual were the means employed, that at the age of fourteen 
this boy was consulted by the chief priests and leaders of the 
city respecting difficult passages of the Law. So Josephus 
himself has told us ; and this seems to render altogether im- 
probable the allegations made here and there not unfrequent- 
ly, that Josephus had no tolerable acquaintance with the He- 
brew. At the age of sixteen he began his inquiries respect- 
ing the several Jewish sects, and actually spent three years 
in solitude with Banus one of the Essenes, in order to be- 
come thoroughly acquainted with the principles of that sect. 
At the age of nineteen he joined the sect of the Pharisees, 
which was altogether predominant at that period. At the 
age of twenty-six he went to Rome as advocate before Nero 
Caesar for some falsely accused Jewish priests, and procured 
their liberation. Not long after this the Jewish war broke 
out, and Josephus, espousing the part of his countrymen, was 
put in command, and made a most gallant defence of Jotapa- 
ta against Vespasian. But there, at length, he was taken 
prisoner, was subsequently kept by Vespasian and Titus as a 
medium of communication between them and the Jews, and 
finally, when the conquest of Judea had been completed, he 
was taken by Titus to Borne, where Vespasian assigned him 
a dwelling in a part of the palace, with honorary maintenance. 
There he wrote his great works, the Antiquities and the His- 
tory of the Jewish War. Later in life he wrote his Treatise 
against Apion, in defence of the Jewish religion and their 
sacred books. Apion was a grammarian of Alexandria, who, 
under Caligula's reign, wrote a violent attack upon Philo Ju- 
daeus and upon the Jewish nation. Near the close of the 
first century, Josephus wrote the Treatise in question ; so 
that it is to be regarded as the fruit of his most mature re- 
flections and studies. 

His knowledge of Greek literature is spoken of by Je- 
rome with astonishment. There is abundant evidence of it 
in his Contra Apionem. His knowledge of the history of 
his own nation is sufficiently testified, by his two great works 
in relation to this subject. It has been thought that he was 



§ 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 225 

but moderately skilled in Hebrew, because he usually appeals 
to the Sept. Version. But for this, two good reasons can be 
assigned ; the one, that he fully believed in the miraculous 
rise of the Septuagint, as is shown by his account of this mat- 
ter ; the other, tbat the Romans for whom he wrote the history, 
could read the Septuagint but not the Hebrew Scriptures. 

That of all the men of his time among the Jews, he was 
best qualified to give an account of Jewish affairs and Jewish 
opinions, there can be no reasonable doubt. I can see nothing 
that could sway him to give a wrong account of what his 
countrymen and himself believed, in regard to the history of 
the Jewish Canon. What that belief was, his rank in life, 
his office as a priest, and above all his great learning, must 
have rendered him able to know. Can any good ground' be 
assigned for the supposition, that he has not given a true ac- 
count of this matter ? 

The sect of the Pharisees, among whom he formed his re- 
ligious opinions, were of all men the most tenacious of tradi- 
tions and of the customs of former days ; and when he as- 
sures us of this and that opinion among the Jews of his time, 
I do not know of any writer among the ancients, the sacred 
writers excepted, who is more trust-worthy than he. 

Thus much that the reader may understanding^ appreciate 
the testimony which we have before us. I return to the con- 
sideration of that testimony. 

My first remark is, that there is no ground to suppose, that 
Josephus gives us any other than the general and settled 
opinion of the great mass of the Jewish nation. To the party 
of the Pharisees this mass assuredly belonged. The Saddu- 
cees were powerful only by virtue of wealth, and perhaps 
learning. They were but a small party. The Essenes lived 
mostly abroad, in desert or lonely places, and avoided mixing 
with the world. Josephus then gives us not a peculiar opin- 
ion of his own merely, but speaks evidently in behalf of the 
great mass of the Jewish people. Finally, if there were any- 
thing merely sectarian in the views of the Pharisees respect- 
ing the Hebrew Canon, Josephus would not have been likely 



226 § 10. COMPLETION OP THE CANON. 

to embrace that in the latter part of his life, inasmuch as he 
evidently lost, in later life, his early zeal for Pharisaism, as 
appears from many passages in his Antiquities. On the 
whole, we can hardly conceive of any one in a better condi- 
tion to give a clear and impartial account of the light, in 
which the Hebrew Scriptures were viewed by the Jews of 
that period. 

Secondly, we might be in some doubt what king of Persia 
was meant by the Artaxerxes of Josephus, (inasmuch as this 
same name is given by some to several Persian kings), had 
not the historian been so explicit as to dispel all doubt on this 
point, by saying, that the Artaxerxes in question was the fol- 
lower of Xerxes upon the throne of Persia. This Artax- 
erxes (Longimanus) began his reign in 464 B. C, and died 
in 424 B. C. Of course he reigned forty years. Later than 
424 B. C, then, no part of the Hebrew Canon can be, if the 
testimony of Josephus is well grounded. 

Thirdly, Josephus assigns all the historical books of the 
Canon to prophets : " The prophets, after Moses, described 
the events which took place in their respective periods, in 
thirteen books." The word prophets, therefore, is plainly 
used by him, in the sense in which I have defined and em- 
ployed it in the preceding pages. What books are included 
in this enumeration of thirteen, is an inquiry that will be made 
in the sequel. 

Fourthly, he states in the most plain and unequivocal man- 
ner, that since the reign of Artaxerxes down to the time in 
which he himself lived, passing events had been fully noted 
— yiyqanta.1 \ilv e'xaata — but " credit was not attached to 
these histories, in like manner as to the earlier ones [the 
canonical books], because there was no certain succession of 
prophets" during that period. Here then are two faets on 
which he rests the opinion that he gives ; the first, that the 
sacred books were completed in the reign of Artaxerxes ; the 
second, that other books, continuing the history of the Jews, 
were composed by those who were not prophets, and therefore 
could not claim that credit which belonged to the former. 



§ 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 227 

How well this view of Josephus accords with what I have 
stated in the preceding pages, viz., that books were not ad- 
mitted to the Jewish Canon unless regarded as of prophetic 
origin, must be obvious to every reader. Had Josephus been 
an ignorant or unlearned person, who had no knowledge of 
other books than the Jewish Scriptures, we should attribute 
less weight to his opinion. Such a man could have examined 
only one side of the question. But here is a witness who, as 
we may reasonably say, has read all the books which pertain 
to Jewish aifairs, and who still draws a distinction wide and 
broad, between those that are sacred and fully credible, and 
those which can be regarded only as the works of erring 
men. No reasonable advocate for the claims of inspiration 
at the present day, could ask for stronger or more definite 
and intelligible expressions, than those of Josephus. 

I know not how language can make it more certain than 
that of Josephus has made it, that he knew well, and made 
definitely, the distinction between the now called apocryphal 
books and those of the Canon. It is beyond a doubt that he 
was acquainted with both ; for he has drawn from both in his 
Antiquities. 

In order that we may have no doubts left as to the exaet 
meaning of Josephus, we must advert to the order which he 
has followed in the historical narrations of his Antiquities. 
In Lib. XL he presents us with the history of the Jews, from 
the time when the decree of Cyrus for their liberation was 
issued (536 B. C), down to the time when Palestine was 
overrun by Alexander the Great (331 B. C). In chap. V. 
of this book he has presented us with an account of events 
recorded in the book of Ezra, in respect to this distinguished 
priest and leader of the new colony of Jewish immigrants ; 
and he places all these events under the reign of Xerxes I, 
taking him to be the king, which, in Ezra 8: 1 seq. of our 
Scriptures, is named Artaxerxes. The journey of Nehemiah 
and his friends to Jerusalem, he assigns to the twenty-fifth 
year of the same king's reign (Antiq. XL 5, 7), while the 
Bible assigns it to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes ; Neh. 2: 



228 § 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 

1, comp. 5: 14), i. e. about twelve years after the immigration 
of Ezra. Whether the error lies in the reading of the Codi- 
ces of Josephus, or in his oversight, in this case, it would be 
difficult to decide, and it is not of any importance to my pre- 
sent object to make a decision. Xerxes' reign lasted but twen- 
ty-one years. There are, moreover, other small discrepancies 
of the like nature between Josephus and the Scriptures ; e. g. 
as to the time (fifty-two days) in which the Avails of Jerusalem 
were completed under Nehemiah (see Neh. 6: 15), while Jo- 
sephus assigns two years and four months as the period of 
completion ; Antiq. XI. 5, 8. But still, nothing is plainer 
than that this historian abridges and copies the whole book 
of Nehemiah, for substance, into his own, and he represents 
the death of this • distinguished leader as taking place under 
the reign of Xerxes I. In XL 1 seq. he gives, in like man- 
ner, a sketch of the events related in the book of Esther ; or 
rather, we might say, an account more copious even than that 
which is contained in the Scriptures. All these events he 
assigns to the reign of Artaxerxes (Longimanus), who reign- 
ed more than forty years (464 — 424 B. C). The Persian 
king of the book of Esther, is uniformly called Ahasuerus.* 
At what time during the reign of this king, the deliverance of 
the Jews, as recorded in Esther, took place, Josephus does 
not say. I must believe, however, that if one reads carefully 
the passage from him, which is printed, on page 223 above, he 
will perceive on the whole that it makes for the position, that 
it was at a late period of his reign. If we read the clause : 
anb 8l rrjg MeoVGSttig rslsvzijg [*s'xqi> 7*JG JjQTa$8Q$ov rov [ASta 
Asgl-qv IleQGcov fiaailecog ciQ^ijg, with an omission of the final 
word aQxijg, (which is omitted in Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III. 10, 
and in most of the manuscripts of Josephus), then it is clear 

* Josephus seems to have considered Ahasuerus as- the proper name of 
only one Persian king; whereas it is plainly an appellative (like Pha- 
raoh, the Czar, etc.), and belongs to Cambyses, Ez. 4: 6, and to Astyages 
the father of Darius the Mecle, Dan. 9: 1. The meaning of the name, 
as developed by the cuneiform writing recently decyphered, is lion-king 
= hero ; see in Ges. Lex. 



§ 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 229 

that Josephus intends to fix his limit at the death of Artax- 
erxes (424 B. C), beyond or since which no book that has 
been written has any just claim to be considered as a part of 
the Hebrew Canon. The manner in which he has drawn up 
his account of these times, proves beyond a doubt that he re- 
garded the book of Esther as the last in the Canon of Scrip- 
ture, as well as that he considered it a sae?-ed'hook. Beyond 
this and further on he draws indeed from other histories of 
the Jews ; and so in all the latter part of his Antiquities ; but 
he compiles here much more loosely than before, and evidently 
proceeds as considering himself more at liberty to depart from 
his sources, as we may learn by comparing his history, e. g. 
of Antiochus Epiphanes, with that in 1 Mace. It is to be 
deeply regretted that he has not given us a particular account 
of his sources, as he had the fairest opportunity for doing it 
at the close of his Antiquities, XX. 11.2, where he has made 
a statement of the object which he had in view in the compo- 
sition of his work, and of his qualifications to accomplish it. 
But he goes no farther in mentioning his sources than to say, 
that he has given an account of ancient historical events, " mg 
al i£Qccl fti'filoi 7tsqI advteov fjovoi, ttjv dvuyQu^tjv, i. e. in ac- 
cordance with the description of them in the sacred books ;" 
ib. 11. 2. Of the estimation in which he held books subse- 
quent to the time of Esther, he has given us an account in 
his Cont. Apion. § 8, as stated above. After having said 
that the twenty-two books of the Jews were za dixmcag dsia 
asm<jT£V[.i£ra, deservedly regarded as divine, he says of the 
others, written after the time of Artaxerxes, that Tiiareag ds 
ov% oixoi'ag rfeltazai rfjg tiqo avzcoy, i. e. that they are not 
■worthy of the like credit with those before them. In respect 
to his qualifications for writing his Antiquities, he says, in a 
modest way (XX. 11. 2), that "he was acknowledged by 
most of his countrymen as excelling in a knowledge of what 
belonged to their country, and that he had given himself to- 
Greek literature, until everything but the niceties of pronun- 
ciation was familiar to him." He says, moreover, that the 
study of Greek literature was disreputable among his coun- 
20 



230 § 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 

trymen ; and for this reason, not more than some two or three 
besides himself had attained to any eminence in it. Of his 
knowledge of Hebrew, the fact that he was employed as in- 
terpreter by Vespasian and Titus, and the fact that he first 
wrote his Jewish Wars in Hebrew, are sufficient evidence. 
That he was a highly intelligent Jewish priest, would of itself 
be a sufficient pledge. 

We will suppose now that the opinion of Josephus was 
merely the result of his private judgment in regard to the or- 
der of the book of Esther. Let it be that Chronicles, Nehe- 
miah and Malachi are later ; all this will not affect the ques- 
tion now before us. Josephus does not specificate any par- 
ticular time during the long reign of Artaxerxes, when the 
events related in Esther took place, nor when the book was 
written. There might be sufficient time, for aught we know 
to the contrary, for writing those several books after Esther 
was written, and yet before the death of Artaxerxes. On the 
other hand, the book of Esther may have been written after 
them, and therefore the last of all, even in case the events 
which it commemorates, had happened some time before they 
were written down. The probability as to matter of fact 
seems to be, that the events commemorated in Esther hap- 
pened during the reign of Xerxes I., inasmuch as he was a 
king whose character well fitted him for such actions as are 
ascribed to the Persian monarch in the book of Esther. In 
this respect Josephus may have formed an erroneous judg- 
ment. Still, there is nothing in the book of Esther, which of 
itself will determine the date of the work. The events which 
it commemorates commenced, indeed, in the third year of 
Ahasuerus, whoever he was ; but how long they were in pro- 
gress, if we include the whole of them, is not quite certain ; 
and of course we cannot decide exactly as to the age of the 
book itself. But in respect to Nehemiah, we know that he 
went a second time from Persia to Palestine, in the thirty- 
second year of Artaxerxes ; Neh. 13: 6. Josephus must have 
read this book, therefore, without due regard to the notations 
of time, since he represents the death of Nehemiah as taking 



§ 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 231 

place under Xerxes L, Antiq. 11. 5. 8, whose reign lasted 
only 21 years. But anachronisms in Josephus are no strange 
thing. 

But be it that Josephus has erred, as to the reign under which 
the events recorded in the book of Esther took place, it does 
not at all affect the statement which he has made, in a man- 
ner so explicit and ample, that the certain sticcession of pro- 
phets ceased with the reign of Artaxerxes. Much dispute there 
has been about the meaning of dxoifiij in the phrase py . . . 
dxQtfiij 8ia5o%qv as applied to the prophets. To me it seems, 
that the simple meaning of Josephus is, that the succession of 
any prophet, after the reign of Artaxerxes, to the series of 
earlier prophets, who wrote the sacred books, is uncertain, 
i. e. it Avas a thing which, although some might regard it as 
true, in his judgment and in that of his countrymen (for he 
speaks their views) could not be established or rendered cer- 
tain. Of course, as he regarded those books only as canoni- 
cal, which were composed by prophets, or men of a prophetic 
spirit, there could be no good ground for admitting any book, 
after the period just named, as canonical. Jiadopjv does not 
mean series or ordo, as it has often been translated, but the 
succession of one thing or person after another of the like kind. 
'JtxQtfirjg (from axoog, pointed, sharp, and this from dxtj, point 
sharpness), literally means pointed, sharp, but figuratively (as 
in the case before us) exact, certain. This view of the words 
accords entirely with the explanation given above. 

It has been said by those who feel an interest in fixing up- 
on a later period for the closing of the O. Test, canon, that 
Josephus cannot mean to assert, what is here attributed to 
him, because he himself attributes to John Hyrcanus (prince 
and high priest, 135 — 107 B. C.) the gift o£ prophecy. Jose- 
phus, who is loud in the praises of Hyrcanus, does say of him, 
indeed, that "he alone obtained the three most excellent things, 
viz. the principality of the nation, the high priesthood, xal 
TiQoqstjTuav, and the gift of prophecy." In order to confirm 
the last declaration he adds : " For the divinity (to daipo- 
mov) was conversant with him, so that he was ignorant of 



232 § 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 

nothing which was to come ;" Jos. Bell. Jud. I. 2. 8. But 
let the reader observe, that Josephus says of John Hyrcanus, 
that he alone attained to such a union of gifts as he mentions, 
and that the stress of this affirmation falls on prophecy is plain 
enough from the fact, that many others united in their per- 
sons the office of ruler and high priest, and from the immedi- 
ate explanation which Josephus himself gives of what he had 
meant specially to assert. Besides, although Josephus ad- 
mits of dream-interpreters, (e. g. Simon of the Essenes, An- 
tiq. xvii. 13. 3), and various prognosticators,* specially dur- 
ing the period near the destruction of Jerusalem, yet it is plain 
enough, that after the reign of Artaxerxes he never intro- 
duces any one in the character of an O. Test, prophet. It is 
plain, too, in respect to the case of Hyrcanus, that the gift of 
prophecy is ascribed to him rather in a way of post mortem 
eulogy, than of accurate and earnest historical narration. At 
all events, Josephus makes no allusion to any written prophe- 
cies of Hyrcanus, so that there is nothing in the case of this 
individual, which can come in competition with the claims of 
the earlier Hebrew prophets ; nothing indeed which contra- 

* In Antiq. XV. 10. 5, Josephus introduces one Menahem, of the Es- 
senes, as prognosticating the future dominion and fortunes of Herod, 
and says of him that " irpoyvoxjiv kK -&eov ruv (ieXXovtuv e^wt', i. e. he 
had from God a foreknowledge of future things. Again (it>.) he says of 
the Essenes, that " many of them, on account of their good and honest 
life, were honoured with skill in divine things." In Bell. Jud. II. 8. 12, 
he says of the Essenes : " There are among them those who profess to 
foretell future things ;" and in the sequel he suhjoins : " Seldom do they 
err in their prognostications." In Bell. Jud. I. 3. 5, he relates a predic- 
tion of Judas, one of the Essenes, " who never lapsed or spoke falsely in 
his predictions." In Bell. Jud. II. 7. 3, one Simon, of the same sect, is 
introduced as a prognosticator. All these cases are of the same charac- 
ter. The Essenes, who were of a contemplative and enthusiastic turn of 
mind, gave their attention to prognostication, and obtained uncommon 
skill in it. Many cases of the like nature are to be found among most 
nations, and in every age. Josephus, no doubt, was a believer in their 
occasional extraordinary gift of foresight ; but still it is easy to see, that, 
with all his wonder at then- attainments in " second sight," he neither 
thinks nor speaks of them as being prophets in the sense in which the an- 
cient Hebrew prophets were. 



§ 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 233 

diets or is opposed to the true spirit and meaning of what 
he says in Cont. Apion. I. 8. What he there declares is, 
that there was no proof of the existence of any prophet (after 
the reign of Artaxerxes) who was the author of a canonical 
or holy book — that no pretended succession of such a nature 
to the former prophets, was certain, dy.Qtprj. "What he says 
of John Hyrcanus, or of any other individuals as prognosti- 
cators or the like, does not contradict this, and is not incon- 
sistent with it. 

Thus much for the testimony of Josephus, in regard to the 
terminus ad quern of the Hebrew prophets. But as this is a 
point of great importance, (at least it strikes me in this light), 
we must see what others have said and thought, as well as 
Josephus, in relation to this matter. 

The author of the first book of the Maccabees, (written not 
long after the death of Simon, about 135 B. C), when de- 
scribing the calamities that came upon Judea, in consequence 
of the death of Judas Maccabaeus, says (9: 27), that " there 
was great affliction in Israel, such as was not ay ijg queoag 
ova coqi&n ngoyrjZTjg iv avzoTg, from the time since 710 prophet 
made his appearance among them." Comp. Jos. Antiq. XIII. 
1, where, in describing the same events he says, " the Jews 
had not experienced so great calamity uf.za rr t v BufivXavog 
inuroSov, since the return from Babylon." That the author 
of Maccabees means as much as to say for a very long time, 
is altogether plain and evident. In his day, then, it was 
counted a long time since any prophet had appeared among 
the Jews. From the time of this author back to the time of 
Artaxerxes, is about 300 years. 

In 1 Mace. 4: 46, the Jews, who had been removing the 
stones of the altar in the temple winch had been profaned by 
Antiochus Epiphanes, are represented as laying them aside, 
" lii'/Qi rov naQuyevtjd'ijrai. 7TQ00ptjrr t v rov u7zoy.Qi&ijvut tzbqI 
avzcov, until the coming of some prophet to decide respecting 
them," viz. to decide what should be done with them. In 
1 Mace. 14: 41 it is said, that " Simon was constituted leader 
and high priest forever, until rov dvaazrjvcu izQocpfap> mazov, 
20* 



234 § 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 

some faithful prophet should arise ;" thus intimating plainly, 
that they knew of no such one at that time, but expected one 
in future ; i. e. (as I apprehend) the Messiah. 

That Malachi (fl. 430—424), in the reign of Artaxerxes, 
was the last of the Hebrew prophets, at all events the last 
who bore any comparison with the old Hebrew prophets, is 
a point that has been almost universally conceded by such as 
had no particular purpose to accomplish, by making out a 
different representation. " With this prophet," says Knobel 
in his recent Prophetismus (II. p. 365), " the Old Testament 
prophetic office expires." The author of the famous Eab- 
binical book Cosri (Pars III. § 65), speaking of the series of 
prophets, says, that " Those which remained of them, after 
the return to the temple [from Babylon], were Haggai, Zeeh- 
ariah, Ezra, etc. In Seder Olam Zuther, fol. 35 col. 2, the 
writer says: "In the fifty-second year of the Medes and 
Persians, died Haggai, Zeehariah, and Malachi ; at the same 
time prophecy ceased from Israel." The Rabbinic author of 
this book, with most of the earlier Jewish Chronologists, 
supposes the Persian empire to have lasted only fifty-two 
years, instead of more than 200, which is the real state of the 
case. The rest of his affirmation, is in unison with the gen- 
eral voice. Jerome (Comm. on Isa. 49: 21) says, in a meta- 
phrase which he puts into the mouth of the Jewish church : 
" Quis mihi istos genuit ? . . . Post Aggaeum, Zachariam, et 
Malachiam, nullos alios prophetas usque ad Johannem Bap- 
tistam videram ;" i. e. Who hath begotten me these ? . . . 
Since Haggai, Zeehariah, and Malachi ; I have seen no other 
prophets down to John the Baptist." So Augustine : " During 
all that period since they [the Jews] returned from Babylon, 
after Malachi, Haggai, and Zeehariah, non habuerunt Prophe- 
tas usque ad Salvatoris adventum, i. e. they had no prophets 
until the advent of the Saviour ;" De Civ. Dei, XVII. 24. 
That the agreement of the ancients is all but universal, in 
respect to this matter, no one acquainted with critical history 
will pretend to question. 

If there be any uncertainty, after all, as to the time when 



§ 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 235 

Malachi lived, it may be removed to any one's satisfaction 
who will take the pains to compare this writer with Ezra and 
Nehemiah. (a) As to breaches of the Law by priests and Le- 
vites in taking foreign wives ; Mai. 3: 10, comp. Ez.9: 1. Neh. 
13: 23—29. (b) Withholding tithes from Levites ; Mai. 3: 10, 
comp. Neh. 13: 10 — 12. (c) Neglect of divine worship; 
Mai. 1: 13. 2: 8, comp. Neh. 13: 15 seq. (d) The applica- 
tion of FtiriB, praefect, to Nehemiah the then present gover- 
nor of Jerusalem, shows that Malachi could not have lived af- 
ter Nehemiah ; for he was the last ruler there who bore the 
title in question ; [""5 = the modern Pasha]. That Malachi 
lived after the temple was completed, and of course after the 
time of Haggai and Zechariah, is shown by Mai. 1: 10. 3: 1, 
10. That he was regarded as the last of the Hebrew pro- 
phets, is shown by the place assigned to his book, which 
closes the series of the prophets. 

I cannot refrain here from reminding the reader, how very 
inconsistent this historical development in regard to the ces- 
sation of the prophetic gift during the reign of Artaxerxes 
Longimanus, is with the favourite theory of De Wette and 
most of the so-called liberal critics, viz., that the book of Dan- 
iel was written during the Maccabaean times of trouble, and 
after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, whose history it gives. 
How could the writer of 1 Mace, say, at the close of these 
distressing times, that there was no prophet in Israel, in case 
a new prophetical book had then just made its appearance, and 
been received by the Jews as authentic ? Or was it, that the 
Jews, in order to admit the claims of the newly written book, 
were persuaded by the writer to believe, that the true work 
of Daniel, which had lain in concealment some three and 
a half centuries, was now first brought into the light and 
edited by him ? One or the other of these positions must be 
true, viz., either that there was a prophet at that period, (con- 
trary to the book of Maccabees, inconsistent with the repre- 
sentations of Jesus the son of Sirach, and at variance with the 
declarations of Josephus and the voice of all antiquity), whose 
authority could give authenticity to the book, or else the for- 



236 § 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 

gery must have been accomplished with so much dexterity as 
to mislead the whole of the Jewish people. These consider- 
ations are serious draw-backs from the capital of all the Lib- 
erals, in regard to the time when the book of Daniel was 
written. 

But to return to our theme ; it seems to me, that the dealings 
of providence with the Jews, in regard to the matter of religious 
instruction, are w T orthy of particular consideration. When the 
Hebrews had no synagogues, and scarcely any copies of the 
Scriptures that were current among them, then were com- 
missioned that distinguished order of religious teachers, the 
SHftia-s and the tPK-h . The only copy extant of the Law of 
Moses might indeed be hidden in the temple, (as in the time 
of Josiah), and yet there must have remained adequate or 
competent teachers of true religion, guided by the Spirit of 
all wisdom and knowledge. The Jews, after their exile, were 
so well satisfied of the sin and folly of idolatry, that they used 
efficient means to guard in future against it ; and these were 
the multiplication of the copies of the Scriptures, and the 
erection of synagogues, where the holy books were read every 
sabbath-day. When this custom was fully established, the 
order of prophets ceased. I cannot doubt that the institu- 
tion of synagogues was introduced, either in the latter pe- 
riod of the life of Ezra and Nehemiah, or very soon after 
their death. The Scriptures themselves, which were thus 
read every sabbath, occupied the place of the earlier prophets. 
It would seem, since the Law made nothing perfect and was 
only a dawning toward the gospel-day, that providence with- 
held one of the modes of instruction, to which I have advert- 
ed, during the time that the other was in full force ; while 
under the gospel both methods are employed in combination, 
and with much greater success. 

Let me be indulged in one remark more, before I dismiss 
the present topic. How came it about, that the Jewish na- 
tion, among whom were prophets from the time of Moses 
down to that of Malachi (about a thousand years), should all 
at once cease to have them at this latter period ? It is a con- 



§ 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 237 

ceded point, that whatever one or another might say of this 
or that fortune-teller or prognosticator, at the later period, 
yet no such persons as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, 
and the like, appeared among the Hebrews for about four 
centuries before the Christian era. Had the Jews become 
so enlightened at this period, as no longer to give ear to the 
pretensions of prophets ? as Neology often and not obscurely 
intimates. Or was there no true zeal for the Mosaic institu- 
tions, and for the customs of the fathers, and no longer any 
desire to obtain a knowledge of future events ? What had 
become of the pride and glorying of the Jews in the order of 
prophets, as showing their superiority over all other nations ? 
These and the like questions may be urged with the more 
force, inasmuch as there is no pretence that the Jews, after 
returning from their exile, ever relapsed into their love of 
heathen idolatry. Unless it were matter of fact, that the or- 
der of prophets ceased with Malachi, I see no way of ac- 
counting for the universal impression among the Jews that 
such was the case. How could they be brought to disclaim 
a matter of so much precedence and honour to their nation, 
in any way excepting by the impossibility of establishing any 
valid claims to an order of prophets beyond the period of 
Malachi ? I must regard it, therefore, as one of the best es- 
tablished facts in their ancient religious history, that the order 
of prophets ceased at, or very near, the close of the reign of 
Artaxerxes Longimanus, i. e. near to 424 B. C. 

At all events this cannot be gainsayed, viz., that we have 
no credible testimony to the contrary. It cannot be contro- 
verted, that Josephus, the most enlightened man at that time 
of the Hebrew nation, as to its antiquities and history, gives 
it as the established opinion of that nation, that for some four 
hundred years they had had no prophets who wrote Scrip- 
tures, or who could properly have the credit of being sacred 
writers. All the writers subsequent to the reign of Artax- 
erxes he explicitly distinguishes, as to the credit due to them, 
fx-om the prophets who preceded ; niazscag 8s ovx ofioiag rj^i- 
torai zijG ago avrcov. Nor is this all. He says, in the same 



238 § 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 

connection, that " although so great a length of time has 
elapsed, [since the days of the ancient prophets], no one has 
dared to add anything to them, or to take anything from 
them, nor to alter anything." How could this be, if many 
Psalms, and the book of Daniel, not to mention smaller por- 
tions of many other books, have been added, as the liberal 
critics aver, in the time of the Maccabees, or even later ? A 
matter so recent as the events of the Maccabaean times, and 
especially a matter of so great importance as that of augment- 
ing the holy Scriptures — how could it have failed to be known 
to Josephus, so thoroughly versed as he was in the history of 
his nation ? But not a word of this nature from him. And 
yet he was under strong temptation, in writing his history, to 
show that the importance and precedence of the Jews had 
not suffered any degradation or decrease in later periods. 
Still, in spite of this feeling so natural to the human breast, 
in spite of all his patriotic ardor, he most amply asserts that 
the end of Artaxerxes' reign was the close of the prophetic 
order of his countrymen. The impartiality of the testimony 
adds much to the regard which is due to it. If the witness 
be interested, it is that he should say things to the honour of 
his nation which he does not say. And how should the 
proud and vain-glorious and boasting Jews of his time be- 
lieve en masse, that no prophets had, for centuries, risen 
among them ? It is very difficult, at least, to answer these 
questions on any ground, except that which admits the truth 
of Josephus' asseverations. 

We may also ask other questions, in respect to the intro- 
duction and reception of new books during this period. Of 
all the nations of whom history has given any account, the 
Jews have been the most conservative and immutable. Sub- 
dued and nearly destroyed by Vespasian and Titus, the rem- 
nant were, and from that time have continued to be, scattered 
over the face of the whole earth. Never have they had a 
dominion or government or country of their own. But after 
1800 years have past, what are they now ? The mass is just 
what they were in the days of the apostles, bigotted fanatics 



§ 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 239 

who are zealous in " tithing mint, anise, and cumin," and 
excessively attached to all the rites and forms that have come 
down to them by tradition, standing alone amidst all the na- 
tions of the earth, unmingled and incapable of being mingled 
with the people among whom they live. No nation on earth 
ever exhibited such a uniformity of character, and such a 
tenacity of traditions. Indeed, their separate and distinct 
existence, without any approach to amalgamation with other 
nations, is in itself a standing miracle, an exception to all 
analogies among the human race. Have they added to, or 
diminished from, their Scriptures during all this period of 
1800 years ? Not in the least. Their Eabbies have indeed 
introduced the Mishna and the Talmud, and commended 
them to the study of all. But they have never assayed to 
join these to their canon of Scripture, or to mingle them 
therewith. Their Bible has remained inviolate. 

Is this the people then, who, a short time before the Chris- 
tian era, stood on the alert to admit new and unheard of books 
into their sacred canon ? After enduring all the persecutions 
of Antiochus on account of their religion, just at the close of 
such a period would they have admitted a new book among 
those for which they were ready to die even joyfully — a book 
purporting to have been written by a man at the head of the 
court, when the decree of liberation from exile went forth, 
and which still had never made its appearance before, during 
nearly four centuries ? How any one can be so yielding as 
to give a ready assent to historical statements so utterly im- 
probable, and yet, on account of a few critical difficulties, be- 
come so entirely skeptical and incredulous as to the claims of 
this book — is a phenomenon that even neology would find it 
difficult to account for, although its disciples in general take 
such a position. 

Nor is even this all that may be said about the later admis- 
sion of books into the Canon of Hebrew Scriptures. "When 
did the rigid and punctilious and unchanging sect of the Pha- 
risees take its rise ? Was it not between the time of Ai'ta- 
xerxes and the Christian era ? On what ground did this 



240 § 10. completion or the canon. 

sect stand ? On the ground of inflexible adherence to the 
traditions of the fathers. And is it not one of those traditions, 
as Josephus has stated it, not to add to, diminish from, or al- 
ter, the sacred books ? In Antiq. XVIII. 1. 2, Josephus says 
of the three sects among the Jews, viz., Pharisees, Sadducees, 
and Essenes, that they had existed in rov Tzdvv do^at'ov rwv 
Ttarqicav, i. e. from the very ancient times of the fathers. Un- 
der Jonathan a Maccabaean prince (159 — 144 B. C), he 
speaks of this sect as being in full vigour ; Antiq. XIII. 5. 9. 
That their origin lies so much in obscurity, is in itself a cir- 
cumstance which shows their antiquity. The famous John 
Hyrcanus, so much extolled by Josephus, being traduced by 
one of the Pharisees, abandoned this sect to which he had 
belonged, and went over to the Sadducees ; as Josephus re- 
lates in Antiq. XIII. 10. 5, 6. On this occasion the histori- 
an says of the Pharisees, that " they had so much influence 
with the people, as to be credited even when they spoke any- 
thing against the king or the high priest." Did this sect, then, 
admit a new book among their Scriptures ? Or if they had 
done so, would they not have been opposed and exposed by 
the Sadducees, who were strict Scripturists, i. e. strenuous 
advocates of the sentiment, that we must abide by the Scrip- 
tures only, without any of the traditions of men superadded ? 
Plainly it was as much impossible to introduce a new book 
(e. g. Daniel), or new Psalms, at such a period of sectarian 
jealousy and dispute, as it would now be to introduce an ad- 
dition to the New Testament, among the contending sects of 
Christians. Whatever may be said by critics about their diffi- 
culties in respect to the earlier composition of the book of Dan- 
iel, they can never meet and overcome the insuperable obsta- 
cles which the history of the religious state of things in the 
Maccabaean times throws in their way. And if the sects of 
Jews described by Josephus, and apparent throughout the 
New Testament, were, as he avers, iv, rov ndvv do^aiov rriov 
Tzaroiwv, then is the probability of new books being introdu- 
ced into the sacred canon after the time of Malachi, a matter 
utterly incapable of being made out. 



§ 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 241 

If indeed we are still urged by critics to admit the later 
addition of books to the sacred canon, why, I would ask, was 
not Jesus Sirachides admitted ? In Sirach. 50: 27 he says : 
" I have written the instruction of understanding and know- 
ledge in this book, I Jesus, the son of Sirach, of Jerusalem, 
who poured forth wisdom from his heart." Nor is this his 
only claim ; for he goes on to say : " Blessed is he who shall 
occupy himself with these things, and whosoever lays them 
up in his mind shall become wise. For if he shall do these 
things, he shall become all-powerful, for his footsteps shall be 
in the light of the Lord." This is a high claim. Few of 
the biblical writers have made a higher one. But this is not 
all. In 24: 32 — 34 he says : " I will radiate forth instruction 
as the morning light, and disclose those things far away. I 
will pour forth instruction as prophecy, I will leave it to future 
generations. Behold, I have -not laboured for myself only, 
but for all those who seek for it" [instruction]. In 30: 16 — 
18, he represents himself as gleaning after others (Solomon), 
and goes on to say : " Consider that I have not laboured for 
myself, but for all those who receive instruction. Hear me, 
ye chieftains of the people, and ye who lead in the assem- 
blies, give ear." Now as we know from the preface to this 
work that it was written in Hebrew, and by a Jew of Jerusa- 
lem peculiarly devoted to sacred studies, and written before 
the time of the Maccabees, to say the least, what should have 
prevented the reception of such a book into the Jewish canon, 
in case the Hebrews were not adverse to making any addi- 
tions of this nature ? The book exhibits a morality that is 
pure and elevated ; the style has a strong resemblance to parts 
of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes ; and it is evident that great 
regard was entertained for the work by the Jews in Egypt, 
where the grand-son of Jesus found it and translated it. The 
Romanists extol it much, and assign good reasons, as they 
think, for the reception of it into their deutero-canon. To 
me it seems, that if the Jews were in such a state, in the Mac- 
cabaean times, as to admit a forged Daniel and recently com- 
posed Psalms into their canon ; and, in a word, if they had 
21 



242 § 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 

no more religious zeal and no more knowledge than all this 
implies ; the Book of the Son of Sirach must have taken the 
place which the above passages quoted from it seem plainly 
to claim. No Romanist or Neologist can give a satisfactory 
reason, why the Jews did not admit it, On the other hand ; 
admitting the truth of Josephus' statement, viz., that since 
the order of prophets had ceased, no book was admitted into 
the Jewish canon, then all becomes plain and easy. The 
Jews could not admit the claims of Jesus the Son of Sirach r 
because he was no prophet. On the like ground they could 
not admit the 1 Mace, into their canon, although a very credi- 
ble history and gravely written, and composed indeed only a 
short time after the book of Sirachides. Scarcely anything 
in the Hebrew Old Testament history is a matter of more 
interest, to one who seeks after a historical knowledge of the 
Jewish nation, than the I. Maccabees. It covers a period of 
forty of the most eventful years that the Jews ever experien- 
ced; and exhibits this nation in the most interesting of all at- 
titudes — contending against a force vastly superior, for their 
God, their religion, their country, and their homes. Yet 
1 Mace, never had any place in the Palestine Jewish canon, 
as all agree. I regard it as equally certain, that it had in 
reality no place in the canon proper of the Egyptian Jews, at 
least in the time of Philo and of Christ and the apostles, not- 
withstanding it was originally written in the Hebrew lan- 
guage. Practically the Jews followed out the principle which 
Josephus states.. They included in the canon those prophetic 
or inspired writers, whom they knew, or supposed that they 
knew, to have lived before the close of Artaxerxes' reign. 
All other writers they left to stand merely upon the footing, 
to which the aesthetical or historic worth of their works enti- 
tled them. 

Mr. Norton has suggested, that all the writings of the He- 
brews, which were extant at the time of return from the 
Babylonish captivity, were collected by the Jews, and com- 
bined in their so called Scriptures. This has often been as- 
serted by Neologists. But the proof of this has not yet been 



§ 10. COMPLETION OF THE CANON. 243 

produced. I doubt not that literature among the Jews, du- 
ring the exile, must have been generally in a low state. 
But as it will not be contended, that the Jews were unac- 
quainted with the art of writing at that time, so I cannot 
but deem it quite improbable, that nothing was written dur- 
ing the seventy years' captivity, except what appears in 
the Old Testament. Is it probable that such men as Sha- 
drach, Meshech, and Abednego, brought up at the court of 
Babylon, and educated in all the Chaldean discipline, never 
wrote anything ? Is it probable that such men as Ezra, Ne- 
hemiah, and Mordecai, at the court of Persia, never wrote 
anything, except the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, 
(if these are to be attributed to them), on any of the sub- 
jects which must be of interest to themselves and their nation ? 
And Ezekiel among the exiles on the Chebar — was he the 
only one of them who could or would employ his pen ? I 
must deem this to be quite improbable. But if these men, 
and other persons in a similar condition as to information, 
did engage in the composition of various works — what has be- 
come of them, it may be asked ? And if it should be, the an- 
swer is not very difficult. What has become of the great mass 
of Greek and Roman writings, at a later period than this ? 
What has become of many, and some very distinguished, works 
of early Christians ? All devouring time has accomplished 
their destruction. And should the question be asked still fur- 
ther, how some of the Hebrew books eame to survive, while 
others perished, the answer is not unlike that which might be 
given in regard to Greek and Roman works, viz., the most 
important, with few exceptions, have survived. In the case 
of the Hebrews, such an answer may be given a fortiori. 
They distinguished between books sacred and those which 
were not so. The relative importance of the former to a 
people attached to their ancient religion, will not be denied. 
This consideration is sufficient, without entering upon any 
comparison of an aesthetical nature, between sacred and other 
writings. Indeed we cannot do this, for the character in this 
respect of books that are lost, is of course unknown to us. If 



244 § 11. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. 

it be asked : Who made the selection of books that are pre- 
served ? My answer would be — prophets, i. e. inspired men. 
If this be not a well grounded answer, how comes it about, 
that the reception of boohs as sacred ceased when the order of 
prophets ceased ? So Josephus directly asserts ; and the his- 
tory of the canon, so far as we can trace it, corresponds with 
this assertion. 



§ 11. Evidence that the Canon of the Old Testament was ear- 
ly completed, arising from the ancient divisions of it ivhich 
bore specif c appellations. 

Every reader of Hebrew knows familiai'ly that the Old Tes- 
tament Scriptures as presented to us, (and so in the Hebrew 
Mss. and in the printed editions ever since the art of printing 
was discovered), are divided into three parts, viz., the Law, 
the Prophets, and the Hagiography. The last is only a Greek 
name which we have borrowed ; for the Hebrew name is 
d^ra , i. e. writings, or (which is equally literal) Scriptures. 
That writings par excellence or sacred writings, are meant 
by this appellation is clear ; and hence the Greek name Ha- 
giography, which has this signification. Plow long has such a 
division of the Jewish Scriptures been made ? A question 
of no small importance ; for these technical appellations of 
course imply a well ascertained and definite number of books 
which are comprised under them. Such names could have 
no tolerable significancy, on the ground that each or either 
division was left in a floating or uncertain condition. Discre- 
pancies of opinion there might be, in time, about the question, 
whether this or that book belonged to this class or that ; but 
what books were comprised within this Corpus, could hardly 
have been a question, at a time when the names before us 
were definitely applied. Civilians have no difficulty in be- 
lieving that the Pandects of Justinian comprise a definite 
collection of ancient Roman laws, nor that the Novellae of 
the same comprise the more modern laws of that empire ; al- 
though it is quite possible, that the claims of one and another 



§ 11. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. 245 

section to stand under the former or latter category, might 
be doubtful. 

We begin with the testimony of Jesus Sirachides, because 
it is the oldest to which we have aceess. The controversy 
about the age of the Wisdom of Sirach has never been fully 
■settled. The main difficulty lies in the fact, that we cannot 
ascertain with entire certainty two personages mentioned in 
the book. In chap. 1. Simon the high priest, the son of Oni- 
as, is highly extolled ; and in the preface to the book by the 
translator, who was the grand-son of the author, he says that 
he performed his work of translation in the reign of [Ptole- 
my] Euergetes. Now it so happens, that there were two Si- 
mons, both high priests, and both sons of Onias ; also two 
Ptolemies with the surname of Euergetes. About a century 
elapsed between the first high priest and king and the second ; 
so that only the circumstances adverted to in the book can 
settle the question of its age with probability. The current 
seems recently to run in favor of the latest date, which would 
assign the composition of the book to about 170 B. C. Its 
translation by the grandson of the author, must then be as- 
signed to about 130 B. C. I will admit, for the present, the 
probability of the later dates ; for I cannot now turn aside to 
discuss the question ; and I do not wish, in fixing on the 
time, to go beyond what critics in general will admit, viz., 
that the book must have been originally composed before the 
time of the Maccabees. It is impossible to believe, had it 
been otherwise, that the Maceabees would have been omitted 
in the eulogy of Hebrew patriots and prophets, contained in 
chap, xliv — 1, and more especially since Simon the high priest 
is there lauded beyond measure. 

In respect to the third division of the Jewish Scriptures 
which has been named cr^r2> = yoacpai, it is plain that on- 
ly by the use of the article with such a name, whether in 
Greek, Hebrew, or English, could it have been made specific. 
In itself the word is generic, and may be applied to any kind 
of writings. But when it is employed in connection with the 
21* 



246 § 11. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OP THE CANON. 

Laio and the Prophets, and has also the definite article before 
it, the import of the word cannot well be misunderstood. 

Thus much for the name Kethubim, since it has been in- 
troduced. But this was not very early. We first meet with 
it in Epiphanius, who translates it literally by yoacptia ; in 
Panario, p. 58. A strictly technical name the third portion 
of the Hebrew Scriptures does not appear to have had, be- 
fore the Christian era, or during the early part of it. We 
shall see, that while the other two names are very ancient, 
the ancient designation of the now-named Kethubim or Ha- 
giography was very various. 

In the preface to Sirach, the translator states, that many 
and signal had been the benefits conferred on the Hebrew 
nation " by the Law, and the Prophets, and the other [books] 
which follow in the same spirit, zav a)Jkoav zav xat avzovg 
dxolovd-rjxozcov." Such is the designation of the triplex 
parts of the Scriptures. It lacks a proper name for the third 
division. See the whole of the Preface in Appendix, No. I. 

Again, in the same preface, the writer says, that " his 
grandfather Jesus applied himself im nXeiov, for a long time, 
or very much, to the reading of the Law, the Prophets, and of 
the other patrical books, zcov aXkrav TiaZQimv fiiftXicov." I have 
made a new adjective here which rather transfers than trans- 
lates the Greek, because there may be some doubt, perhaps, 
whether the writer means books belonging to the fathers, i. e. 
books which they received, or books of which the fathers were 
the authors. In either case the meaning indeed is for substance 
about the same, or nearly so ; but at all events and plainly 
a third division of the Scriptures, not comprehended in the 
two preceding ones, is here designated, although not by a 
technical name. 

Once more, speaking of a variety as to modes of expression 
in different languages, he says, that " there is no small dif- 
ference, also, among the books belonging to the Law, the 
Prophets, xca za Xoirta zap fiifilicov, and the rest or remain- 
der of the booh." Here is still another designation of the 
third division of the Hebrew Scriptures. The kest of the 



§ 11. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. 247 

boohs must of course be some definite or well known remain- 
der of them ; else the readers of the Preface could have no 
definite idea of what the writer meant. Indeed ra loina is 
susceptible of no other certain and definite meaning, than 
such an one as I have just assigned to it. It was not the 
object of the translator, to assert that his grandfather gave 
himself to the diligent and long continued reading of all books 
without distinction, but only to those sacred books which 
would particularly aid him in the composition of his work. 
Moreover, if the Laiv in this case designates a definite and 
well known portion of the Scriptures, and the Prophets ano- 
ther, (as surely they do), the tec loind rmv fiift)Joov, in the po- 
sition and relation in which it stands, must also be equally 
definite in the view of the writer and reader of that day. Bi§- 
)Jar, then, i. e. the plural of piftuov, is here used just as we 
employ the word Scriptures, viz. the plural form of the word 
is used to designate the idea, that the book as a whole is 
made up of many separate parts. Both Greeks and Latins, 
at a subsequent period, employed ftifiXia and biblia to denote 
the volume of the Scriptures. It is like employing the Latin 
literae, to designate a single epistle, because it consists of ma- 
ny literae united together. Of course, when the grandson of 
Jesus Sirachides employs ra Xoirtd x<x>v fit-fiXi'mr, he uses it 
just as we should use the phrase the rest of the Scriptures, 
immediately after mentioning the Law and the Prophets. 
Of necessity this has a definite meaning ; and if so, the Bible, 
at that time, was a well known and definite book. 

I will not affirm, that what the grandson says for the pur- 
pose of designating the Hebrew Scriptures, renders it certain 
that these designations already existed in the time of the 
grandfather. Yet I am persuaded that his words imply thus 
much. At all events, so much must be' plain, viz. that the 
grandson means to tell his readers what and how many books 
his grandfather diligently studied. If the names which he 
employs in order to describe them were not in use in the time 
of Jesus Sirachides, yet there must have been some circum- 
scription to the limits of the original author's study, and 



248 §11. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. 

some expressions which would mark it as a well known and 
definite circle of reading. Such being the case, in the days 
of Sirachides the Hebrew Bible must have already attained 
to a definite whole or corpus. 

But is there not something in the book itself, as it came 
from the pen of Sirachides, which speaks to the like purpose ? 
In the proem to his natioaiv v\ivoq or Eulogy of the Fathers 
(chap. xliv. seq.), he speaks generally of what had been done 
by the Hebrew worthies. Among other things he says : 
" They gave counsel by their understanding, they preached — 
made public declarations, ane.yyt.Xx6r eg — by their prophecies ;" 
44: 3. Again, of some others among them (v. 5), he says : 
" They sought out the melody of music, they composed po- 
ems in writing, 8i.rjyovii.evoi mtj ev yQCKpy. This latter clause 
De Wette translates : Dichteten Lieder schriftlich, (with the 
same meaning as above) ; and in its connection, this seems to 
me plainly to be the only true meaning. Here then are the 
two latter divisions of the Bible ; for, according to Josephus 
(cont. Apion. I. 8), the third part consisted principally of po- 
etry. In chap, xlv., when the writer comes to speak of Mo- 
ses, he says, that God "gave him commandments by per- 
sonal intercourse, the Law of life and knowledge, to teach Ja- 
cob his covenant, and Israel his judgments." Here then, 
according to the view of Sirachides himself, are virtually the 
same triplex divisions or portions of the Scriptures, which are 
mentioned by the grand-son and translator in his preface to the 
book. To make this language intelligible, there must have 
been a known and recognized distinction among the He- 
brew sacred books at that time, to which the mind of the 
reader would of course advert, when these different portions 
were named. 

Philo Judaetjs (flor. 40 B. C.) is our next witness, in 
regard to the point before us. In his book De Vita contem- 
plative: (Opp. II. p. 475 ed. Mang.) he is speaking of the 
Essenes as peculiarly devoted to such a life, and as withdraw- 
ing into their secret apartments, from which everything per- 
taining to the refreshment of the body was excluded, and 



§ 11. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. 249 

there, says he, " they receive only the laws and the oracles 
uttered by the prophets, and the hymns and other [books'], by 
which knowledge and piety are augmented and perfected."* 
In other words, they admit to their meditation-closets nothing 
but the holy Scriptures. That this is his meaning, is plain 
from that which he immediately subjoins : " For addressing 
themselves to the holy Scriptures, (ivtvy^dvovteg ya.Q rolg 
lEQOig yQuix^aai), they philosophize after the manner of their 
country," etc. Immediately after this he says : " They have, 
moreover, the writings of ancient men, the leaders of their 
sect, who have left many memorials of their views, in regard 
to allegorical matters." Here the express separation of their 
sectarian books from the Scriptures before mentioned, leaves 
no room to doubt what the meaning of Philo is ; see Ap- 
pend, ut supra. Such then in Egypt, as well as in Palestine, 
was the well known division of the Hebrew Scriptures before 
the Christian era. How exactly it coincides with the division 
in the apostolic age, we shall soon see. 

In the New Testabient we find the most explicit testi- 
mony to the same purpose. Jesus says to his wondering and 
doubting disciples, after his death and resurrection, in order 
to calm and satisfy their minds with regard to these events : 
" All things must be fulfilled, which are written in the Law 
of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, concerning me ;" 
Luke 24: 44. In the 27th verse of the same chapter it is 
said of Jesus, that " beginning from Moses and from the pro- 
phets, he explained to them [to his disciples] in all the Scrip- 
tures the things which concerned himself." This passage is 
virtually the same with that above. Two divisions of Scrip- 
ture are here alluded to by name, and the third is separated 
from them by a phraseology which necessarily imports, that 
there were other portions of Scripture besides the two named, 
which Jesus interpreted for the disciples, as he first had done 
in respect to the Law and the Prophets. That the third por- 
tion has not a specific appellation, is the same phenomenon 
that we have already seen in Sirachides and in Philo. Phi- 

* See Appendix, No. II for the whole passage. 



250 § 11. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. 

lo, however, adverts to the third division under the general 
designation of hymns (vfivoi) ; and Luke, or rather the Sa- 
viour himself, refers to it in the same way, only he calls it 
ipal/Aoi, which is altogether equivalent to the Vfivoi of Philo. 
The obvious reason of this designation seems to be, either that 
the Hagiography began (as now) with the book of Psalms, 
and then the maxim, a potiori nomen fit, guided the choice of 
a designation ; or else the third class of books was called 
Psalms, because it consisted principally, if not altogether, of 
poetry. That the Scriptures in a specific form are here meant, 
there can be no doubt ; for after speaking of the things writ- 
ten in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, concerning 
Christ, it is said of Jesus, that " he opened the mind [of the 
disciples] to understand tag yoaqsag, the Scriptures" viz. 
those Scriptures which he had quoted and explained. 

We have already seen, that Josephus, after naming the 
Law and the Prophets as constituting the first two parts of the 
Jewish Scriptures, says of the other books : " At ds lomcd 
ttooaoeg v/xvovg elg tov ■O'eov, xui voig dv&QOiTzoig VTio&tj- 
xag tov fii'ov ntoivfovaiv, i.e. the other four books contain 
hymns to God, and maxims of life for men ;" Cont. Ap. I. 8. 
See Append. No. III. Here again is plainly the same thing 
which we have found in Philo and in the New Testament, 
with only this difference, that Josephus in adding maxims of 
life for men, has definitely alluded to the books of Proverbs 
and Ecclesiastes, while the other writers have merely com- 
prised them under generic names. 

In the later catalogues of the Old Testament books among 
Christians, viz. that of Melito in the second century, and of 
Origen in the first part of the third, the names of the books 
are merely given, without mention of the general triplex di- 
vision adverted to by all the preceding writers who have been 
quoted above. Melito, however, adverts in the context to 
the O. Test. Scriptures (see in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. IV. 26), 
under the designation of the Law and the Prophets, in the 
same manner as is sometimes done in the New Testament. 
But in Jerome, incomparably the best Hebrew scholar and 



§ 11. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. 251 

critic among all the ancient Christian fathers, (indeed we may 
say, the only really thorough Hebraist among them all), who 
spent some twenty years in Palestine and made himself fa- 
miliar with everything pertaining to the Hebrews — in Je- 
rome's Prohgus Galeatus, the same triplex division reap- 
pears : " Ita hunt pariter Yeteris Legis libri viginti duo, id 
est, Mosis quinque, et Prophetarwn octo, Hagiographorum 
novem ; i. e. thus at the same time are made twenty-two 
books of the Old Testament, that is, of Moses five, of the 
Prophets eight, of the Hagiograpliy nine." Down then to 
the time of Jerome this ancient division of the Jewish Scrip- 
tures was in full use, although, as we shall hereafter see, the 
books assigned to the second and third divisions had suffered 
some change of location respectively since the time of Jo- 
sephus, who reckons the Prophets as comprising more books 
than Jerome assigns to them, and the Hagiograpliy of course 
as comprising fewer. 

Lastly, the Talmud, in the fifth or sixth century, put the 
final seal upon this usage, so far as the Jews and the Hebrew 
Bible are concerned. This compilation by learned Babylon- 
ish Jews of all the traditions among their Rabbies in respect 
to the Scriptures and to the subject of religious rites and cer- 
emonies, was probably made in the latter part of the fifth and 
the beginning of the sixth centuries, (some portions of it pos- 
sibly earlier, and some still later). In the Gemara of it, 
Tract. Baba Bathra, fol. 13. c. 2, we find the following decla- 
ration : " Our wise men say, that the whole is one, and each 
part is one by itself; and they have transmitted to us the 
Law, the Prophets, and the Kethnbim, united together as one, 
n-a: n-p-'Ts troirdi tra-iaa srii'si ':*:zb "N--n-." After 
this, the passage goes on to recite the order in which the 
books are arranged, and to specificate those which belong to 
the three divisions respectively. The Law is of course the 
same in all the arrangements of the ancients ; the Prophets con- 
tains, as usual, Joshua, Judges, I. n. Samuel, I. II. Kings, Je- 
remiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve Minor Prophets, thus 
making eight books for the second division, as in our common 



252 § 11. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. 

Hebrew Bibles, and as in Jerome quoted above. In the Kethu- 
bim or Hagiography, the Talmudists reckon eleven books, while 
Jerome makes but nine. The difference consists merely in 
the mode of combination. Jerome joins Euth to Judges as 
one book, and thus brings the former into the circle of the 
Prophets ; he also joins Lamentations with Jeremiah, and 
arranges it of course in the same way ; while the Talmudists 
separate these two small books, and throw them both into the 
third division. Jerome's division is more in conformity with 
the ancient number of the scriptural books. That of the 
Talmud depends on a new mode of numbering these books ; 
of which more in due time. 

What the Talmud thus sanctioned, has come down to the 
present hour, among the Jews, substantially the same. The 
only exception is in the order of some of the books ; which 
has always been a matter that admitted of change, and has 
indeed been very various in different countries and in diffe- 
rent ages. The Talmudists have one arrangement ; the Ma- 
sorites another ; the German Mss. follow the former, while 
the Spanish Mss. exhibit the order of the latter ; and thus 
with the editions of the Hebrew Bible that are respectively 
copied after each. 

From a remote time, then, even before the Christian era, 
a triplex division of the Jewish Scriptures has been made, 
which necessarily involved a special relation of each part to 
the other, and of course rendered it necessary that the extent 
of each part should be definitely and well known. If the 
Law was definite, if the Prophets was definite, then the Keth- 
ubim also was definite. For when Sirachides (in his pre- 
face) speaks of " the Law itself, and the Prophecies, y.al za 
loma rav fttfiXlmv," if the two first parts are circumscribed, 
definite, and intelligible, then the third division must be 
equally so ; for otherwise it would mean simply all other 
books. To suppose this last to be the meaning, would be an 
absurdity. 

This brings us then again to the position, that for a long 
time antecedently to the Christian era, the Old Testament 



§ 11. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. 253 

was a definite, well known, accredited collection of writings, 
regarded by the Jews as their sacred Code of Laws, and dis- 
tinguished by them from all other books. But of the estima- 
tion in which these books were held, it will become necessary 
hereafter again to speak. 

In order to render this view of the manner in which the 
O. Test. Scriptures were designated, even in very ancient 
times, more complete, I must not omit to mention, that as all 
names of things, of which frequent use must be made in com- 
mon parlance, become, in case they are long, almost without 
exception abridged for the sake of convenience, so it fared 
with the triplex and full designation of the holy Scriptures. 
Oftentimes the Old Testament was spoken of merely as one 
book, or one code of religious laws and history, and then a 
single name of a generic nature was applied — the very same 
that was technically employed, at a later period, to designate 
the third division of the Scriptures, viz., yocicpai = tn3>ir©, 
exactly in the sense of our word Scriptures. Examples of 
this are easily found in the New Testament; e. g. Matt. 21: 
42. 22: 29. 26: 54, 56. Luke 24: 32, 45. John 5: 39. Acts 
17: 2, 11. 18: 24, 28. Rom. 15: 4. 16: 26. 2 Pet. 3: 16. In 
Rom. 1: 2, Paul names the Old Testament, yQaqal ayica, in 
reference to their inspiration by the Holy Spirit, and to the 
same purpose leQu yQcc^ufiaza in 2 Tim. 3: 15. When the 
speaker wished to appeal to Scripture in a still more generic 
way, (leaving out of view its various component parts), he 
employed the singular number of the noun yQaq<tj, specially 
when he cited a passage from Scripture without stopping to 
designate the particular place whence he took it ; e. g. Mark 
12: 10. 15: 28. Luke 4: 21. 7: 38. 10: 35. 13: 18. 17: 12. 
19: 28, 37. 20: 9. Acts 1: 16. 8: 32, 35. Rom. 4: 3. 9: 17. 
10: 1. 11: 2. Gal. 3: 8. 1 Tim. 5: 18. James 2: 8. 1 Pet. 2: 
6. In a way a little different from this usage, and in the 
mere generic sense of Scripture generally, we find yQayrj 
employed John 2: 22. 10: 35. Gal. 3: 22. 2 Pet. 1: 20. In 
2 Tim. 3: 16, Paul speaks of ndaa yqacpri, i. e. every com- 
ponent part or portion of Scripture, (aaaa r\ yqaqitj would 
22 



254 § II. ASTCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CAUOST. 

mean the whole of Scripture as a totality, Winer, N. Test. 
Graram. § 17. 10), and avers that it, i. e. each part or portion 
of Scripture, is ■dsonve.varog, divinely inspired. 

The Law, as being the leading and preeminent part of the 
Old Testament, is not unfrequently employed to designate 
comprehensively the Scriptures in general. Nothing is more 
common than such a metonymy or synecdoche, where the 
name of a part stands for the whole, and especially of a pre- 
eminent or leading part. The old maxim : A potiori nomen 
Jit, also explains this. In such a generic sense does the word 
seem plainly to be employed in Luke 16: 17. John 10: 34. 
12: 34. 15: 25, for the Law (to which the speakers in these 
cases refer) is not any passage in the Pentateuch, but in other 
parts of Scripture. So is it, also, with 1 Cor. 14: 21, where a 
quotation from Isaiah 28: 11, 12, is named the Law. In 
John 1:17, however, we have a plain recognition of the word 
Laio as employed in the limited and technical sense : " The 
Law was given by Moses." Rabbinic usage agrees with the 
custom of the N. Test, writers, in the employment of the word 
law in a general sense ; and so does the usage of our own theo- 
logical dialect at the present day, e. g. in such cases as ' the 
Law and the Gospel,' ' the divine Law has forbidden or sanc- 
tioned this or that,' etc. Comp. 2 Mace. 2: 18. 

It will be no matter of surprise, after this view of the man- 
ner in which appellations are bestowed on the 0. Test. Scrip- 
tures, to find that the second portion of them, i. e. the Prophets, 
as well as the first and third, sometimes lends its name to de- 
signate the whole collection. Examples of such a usage may 
be found in Mark 1: 2. Matt. 26: 56. Luke 18: 31. 24: 25. 
John 6: 45. Acts 3: 21. 13:27,40. 15:15. 26:27. 2 Pet. 3: 2. 
This accounts for the use of the plural number, TtooqiiJTai, in 
some cases where merely one single prophet is quoted ; e. g. 
Matt. 2: 23, and many of the passages to which reference is 
made in the preceding sentence. 

The reverse of this, viz,, the use of the singular number, 
TZQoqnrjTiig, to designate the whole of Scripture, (like yQaqiri 
instead of yqaqiat), I believe cannot be found in the New 



§ 11. ANCIENT DIVISIONS OF THE CANON. 255 

Testament. There is an obvious reason for this. All the 
writers of the Old Testament, in the language of the Jews, 
were called Prophets ; so that all were virtually placed on the 
same basis or in the same rank. No one of these, (the sin- 
gular number would indicate only a single individual), was so 
preeminently or exclusively the author of the Scripture, as to 
cause them to be named from him. Between yqacpri and 
jQaqiai' there is no such contrast, because neither of the words 
are indicative of persons. We cannot solvo the difficulty then 
in Mark 1: 2 seq., where passages in two prophets are quoted, 
while they are introduced by the formula : " As it is written 
in the prophet," by saying that the singular number, nqocffjiig,. 
stands for the whole collection. The solution lies in another 
quarter. Griesbach, and those who follow him, employ the 
singular number here, j7£ogr>/;r//. But Hahn, the Vulgate text, 
and the earlier critical editions, read nQo^r-jtaig ; Lachmann 
himself confessing that the authority of it is equal to that which 
adopts the singular number. In such a case to prefer the 
more difficult reading, as it is called, to the one which is con- 
gruous with the context and with good sense, is what I must 
name an abuse of a good thing — a real perversion of the ra- 
tional laws of criticism. But we cannot dwell on such mat- 
ters. 

Finally, the two leading appellations of the triplex division 
of the Scriptures are not unfrequently joined together, in or- 
der to make the name somewhat more complete than one ap- 
pellation only could make it. Thus the Law and the Prophets 
in Matt 11: 13. 22: 40. Luke 16: 16. John 1: 45. Acts 13: 15. 
24: 14. Bom. 3: 21. Exactly in the same sense, and for the 
same purpose, Moses and the Prophets is used in various pas- 
sages ; e. g. Luke 16: 29, 31. 24: 27. Acts 25: 23. 

I would merely remark, at the close of this exposition of 
Scriptural usage as to names, that the N. Test writers could 
never have employed all these different appellations, and so 
often interchanged them without superadding any explana- 
tions, if the definite import of each and all had not been well 
understood by themselves and by those whom they addressed. 



256 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 



The Old Testament must have been as definite then, as it is 
now, and its limits as well known. Every Jew that could read, 
must have known what books belonged to it, when copies of 
the Scriptures had become common. 



§ 12. Sameness of the Jewish Canon in early times shown by 
the Number and Names of the Books. 

"We have seen that Jesus Sirachides adverts only to the 
triplex division of the holy Scriptures in his time, but does not 
give us eitber the names or the number of the books con- 
tained in them. This division is brought to view so fre- 
quently in the Wisdom of Sirach (including the Preface), that 
there can be no reasonable doubt of its designating a limited 
and definite collection of books ; and by comparison of the 
same triplex division brought to view also by subsequent 
writers in early times, and this in connection with the number 
and names of the books, we learn what estimate we should put 
upon the designations by Sirachides of the various portions of 
the Scriptures. We argue from the nature of the case, that 
his designations must imply a definite and ascertained num- 
ber or circle of books ; but we must go to other writers to 
learn with exactness the dimensions of this circle. 

Josephus has testified, (in the passage cont. Apion. I. § 8 
as fully quoted above, p. 223, see Append. No. III.), in the 
following manner : " We have twenty-two books, comprising 
the history of every age, which are justly credited as divine." 
Five of these he assigns to Moses ; thirteen to the prophets ; 
and of course four to the Hagiography. Would that he had 
given us the names of each, and of those to be classed under 
each division ! But as he has not, we must supply this defi- 
ciency in the best manner that we can. I believe it may be 
done to the entire satisfaction of every reasonable reader. 

The earliest writer after Josephus, who has given us an 
account of the sacred books of the Jews, is Melito, bishop of 
Sardis, (fl. 170 A. D.). He travelled from Sardis to Pales- 
tine, mainly, as it would seem by his own statement, for the 



§ 12. SAMENESS OP THE JEWISH CANON. 257 

purpose of ascertaining the exact names, number, and order of 
the Jewish Scriptures, The result of his visit he communi- 
cates to his brother Onesimus, in the following letter, pre- 
served by Eusebius in Hist. Ecc. IV. 26. (See the original in 
App. No. IV.) 

" Melito to Onesimus his brother, greeting. Since you 
have often requested, through the earaest desire that you 
cherish for the word [of God], that you might have a selec- 
tion made for you from the Law and the Prophets,* which 
has respect to our Saviour and the whole of our faith ; and 
since moreover you have been desirous to obtain an accurate 
account of the ancient booh, both as to their number and their 
order ; I have taken pains to accomplish this, knowing your 
earnestness in respect to the faith, and your desire for instruc- 
tion in regard to the word ; and most of all, that you, while 
striving after eternal salvation, through desires after God, 
give a preference to these things. Making a journey there- 
fore into the east [Palestine], and having arrived at the 
place where these things [i. e. scriptural events] were pro- 
claimed and transacted, I there learned accurately the books 
of the Old Testament, which I here arrange and trans- 
mit to you. The names are as follows : The five books of 
Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. 
Then Joshua of Xun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two 
of Chronicles. The Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solo- 
mon (also called "Wisdom), Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, 
Job. Prophets : Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in one book, 
Daniel, EzekieL Ezra. From these I have made selections, 
distributing them into six books." 

It will not be pretended, I presume, by any considerate man, 
that the Jews in Palestine had altered their Scriptures be- 
tween the time of Josephus (born A. D. 37) and that of Me- 
lito. The thing was impossible ; first on the ground of their 
own opposing parties, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes ; 

* These plainly stand for the whole Scriptures, according to N. Test, 
usage pointed out on page 255 above. 
' 22 * 



258 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

secondly, on the ground of rivalship between Jews and Chris- 
tians. I might add a third consideration, peculiarly applica- 
ble to those times, and this is the sectarian zeal with which 
the Pharisees guarded all the traditions and customs of their 
forefathers. 

(1) My first remark on this testimony of Melito is, that it 
comes from a very distinguished and enlightened man. Cave 
says justly of him : " Vir pietate non minus quam doctrina 
clarus ;" and Tertullian (a contemporary) testifies of him, 
that most Christians called him a prophet; in Hieron. de 
Script, c. 2. 4. His knowledge was acquired, moreover, by a 
special effort and much caution ; for he was not content with 
what he learned at Sardis, but must needs go to Palestine it- 
self, in order that he might know the axQtfieictv, the exact truth, 
of the whole matter respecting the Jewish Scriptures. 

(2) It seems quite probable, if not altogether certain, 
from the names of the books, as given by Melito, and from 
their order, that he learned them by consulting a Greek copy 
or copies of the Scriptures, and not a Hebrew one. Neither 
the names, in some cases, nor the order, nor the classification, 
compares altogether with the Hebrew, but rather with the 
Version of the Seventy ; yet in some respects, not even with 
the Septuagint as we now have it in our printed copies. But 
in making the four books of Samuel and Kings into one book 
with one and the same designation, viz. Kings, he plainly fol- 
lows the Septuagint ; in placing Chronicles next to them, he 
does the same, but here it is far from certain that the Hebrew 
at that time differed in respect to this from the Septuagint. 
The sequel of his catalogue differs, as to order, both from the 
Jewish and Septuagint lists of the books of the Old Testament 
which have come down to us ; as also from the order of these 
books as given by Origen, Jerome, and others. But, as I have 
already remarked, the order of classification has always been 
subject to variation in the second and third classes of the He- 
brew books ; and that of Melito helps to confirm this view of 
the subject. 

(3) As the copy or copies of the .Greek Scriptures, from 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 259 

which Melito took his list, contained none of the apocryphal 
books (so called), so it is plain and quite certain, that near 
the close of the second century the Greek Scriptures as cir- 
culated and used in Palestine, contained none of the so-called 
deutero-canonical books, i. e. apocryphal books. Whatever 
may have been the condition of the Old Testament Greek 
Scriptures at Alexandria, at the period in question, the 
" books written after the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus" 
were not included in the Scriptures which Melito consulted. 
The Eomish church will find, therefore, in this almost primi- 
tive father, but a very slender support, (indeed none at all 
but the contrary), for their deutero-canon. If it be said, (as 
it has been), that the clause in Melito, ^aXo^arog 7taooi}iiai 
?} xac ooqti'u means the Proverhs of Solomon and also Wisdom, 
(i. e. the Wisdom of Solomon, one of the apocryphal books), 
the reply to this suggestion is easy. " Nearly all the an- 
cients," remarks Valesius on this passage, " called the Pro- 
verbs of Solomon Wisdom, and sometimes oocpiav 7Zavaiqs- 
70V." Accordingly Dionysius of Alexandria calls the book 
of Proverbs q ooqa) fiifilog ; Cap. 28, Catena in Jobum. The 
author of the Jerusalem Itinerary, speaking of a certain 
chamber in Jerusalem, says that " Solomon sat there, and 
there he wrote Sapientiam," i. e. the book of Proverbs. Me- 
lito means then merely to say, that the work of Solomon call- 
ed naQot+iiai, had also the name of oorpia. The pronoun ?j 
also imports this. We cannot alter the accentuation and 
make it an article ; for to a title of a book the article does 
not in such a case belong. 

(4) Counting the books as arranged by Melito, we find them 
twenty-one in number ; which lacks one of the number as given 
by Josephus. As the list of the bishop now stands, the books 
of Nehemiah and Esther seem to be omitted. The solution of 
the difficulty in respect to Nehemiah is easy. Both Jews and 
Greeks, at that time, reckoned the books of Ezra and Nehemi- 
ah as being but one ; for so it appears by the fists of the sacred 
books among the ancients, Origen, Jerome, Concilium Laod., 
Canones Apost., Hilary, etc. Only one book then is lacking 



260 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

in Melito ; and this is the book of Esther. How the prob- 
lem which this omission raises is to be solved, critics have not 
been agreed. Eichhorn supposes Esther to be included by 
Melito under the denomination "Eadqag ; but the like to this 
is not found elsewhere among the ancient modes of reckoning 
the sacred books. Herbst, in his recent Einleitung, supposes 
Melito to have had access to a Greek Manuscript which con- 
tained the apocryphal additions to Esther, and which, as he 
was told by the Jews that they did not admit the authenticity 
of the book in that interpolated state, he rejected from his 
canon. I deem it more satisfactory to suppose, with others, 
an omission here of the name of Esther by Eusebius, in copy- 
ing th.e document. Precisely such an one occurs in his copy 
of Origen's canon, Ecc. Hist. VI. 25. Origen says, even as 
copied by Eusebius, that twenty-two books belong to the Ca- 
non, and he then proceeds to name them. But in doing this, 
the twelve Minor Prophets (in one book) are omitted by Eu- 
sebius, so that, as represented by this historian, Origen makes 
only twenty-one books. Besides this, Ruffinus' translation of 
Origen gives us the missing book, and restores the Minor 
Prophets to their proper place. Herbst thinks that Melito 
himself must have omitted Esther, because, as he avers, 
Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen reject it. But Gregory 
remarks in respect to it : " tovzoig [i. e. to or with the other 
books of the O. Test] Tzgoasyy.Qivovai rty 'Ea&rjQ rivsg, i. e. 
with these some reckon Esther ;" Carm. XXXIII. Tom. n. 
It would seem probable that he himself doubted of the book. 
Athanasius also omits it, probably on a similar ground ; but 
Origen, the Council of Laodicea (about 360 — 364) Can. 59, 
Canones Apostol. LXXXV, Cyrillus Hieros. Catech. IV. 
No. 33 — 36, Epiphanius de Mens, et Ponder, c. 22, 23, Opp. 
II., Jerome in Prol. Gal., in their respective lists, all expressly 
insert it. It must be admitted, I think, that either Gregory 
and Athanasius both had doubts about the canonical authority 
of Esther ; or that in their lists of sacred books, they have 
merely copied from Eusebius, who, it seems plain, had acci- 
dentally omitted it. The whole current of Christian antiqui- 



§ 12, SAMEKESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 261 

ty is evidently in favour of such a view. And as to the 
Jews, the very copious extracts which Josephus has made 
from the book of Esther, as also the time in which he sup- 
poses it to have been written, render it altogether certain that 
it was in his canon of the Jewish Scriptures. 

Thus much for Melito. A most important witness more- 
over he is, because he is so earl)', and withal so intelligent 
and candid. We have then the books which Josephus' num- 
ber twenty-two comprised. "We cannot omit Esther at all 
events, so far as Josephus is concerned ; and our next object 
is to inquire how these books in question came to be reckon- 
ed at twenty-two. 

In whatever way we regard the number of the sacred books 
of the Old Testament, as reckoned by the ancient Jews or 
Christians, we are obliged to confess that there is something 
of the arbitrary and the fanciful in it. Still, it is a circum- 
stance in itself so immaterial, that we need not take any 
alarm at the phantasies which have controlled this matter. 
Jerome, who spent many years in Palestine in studying the 
Hebrew language, customs, and opinions, and who, as I have 
said, was by far the best critic and exegete of all the ancient 
fathers, has doubtless given us the true secret of the number 
twenty-two, as applied to the Hebrew Scriptures. Let us 
hear him, as he speaks in his Prologus Galeatus : "Viginti 
et duas literas esse apud Hebraeos, Syrorumque quoque lin- 
gua et Chaldaeorum testatur quae Hebraeae magna ex parte 
confinis est. Nam et ipsi viginti duo elementa habent, eodem 

sono et diversis characteribus Quomodo igitur viginti duo 

elementa sunt, per quae scribimus Hebraice omne quod loqui- 
mur, et eorum initiis vox humana comprehenditur ; ita vi- 
ginti duo volumina supputantur, quibus, quasi literis et exor- 
diis, in Dei doctrina tenera adhuc et lactens viri justi erudi- 
tur infantia; i. e. that there are tiventy-two letters among the 
Hebrews, the Syriac and Chaldee languages testify, which for 
the most part are kindred with the Hebrew. For they have 
twenty-two letters, the same [as the Hebrew] in sound, but 
differing in form ... As then there are twenty-two letters by 



262 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

which we write in Hebrew everything that we utter, and the 
human voice is comprised within their constituent initial ele- 
ments : so twenty- two volumes are reckoned, by which the 
tender and as yet unwearied infancy of the just man is in- 
structed, as by elementary letters, in the doctrine of God." 
It is in vain to ask what could have directed the minds of 
those who arranged the Scriptures to such a fanciful compar- 
ison. But to say the least, it is certainly not an unnatural 
mode of reckoning. £ Letters instruct, and there are twenty- 
two of them ; the Scriptures instruct, and there are twenty- 
two of them.' Such was the analogical reasoning. I do not 
know that critics have taxed Aristarchus with folly or weak- 
ness, because he divided the Iliad and Odyssey into twenty- 
four books each, according to the number of letters in the 
Greek alphabet. It was an easy way of designating and dis- 
tinguishing the different parts of those poems. Why should 
it be thought strange, that not far from the same time some 
zealous student of the Jewish Scriptures divided them in a 
similar manner ? Even if you reply, and say that unnatural 
combinations of different books into one were resorted to, in 
order to make the number twenty-two ; still this has no solid 
foundation. Aristarchus has combined the poems of Homer, 
in some cases, in the like manner, where the matter would 
have pointed to a division different from that which he has 
made. Yet his division is without any serious inconvenience. 
So the Jews in several cases combined books together as one 
which seem to be two, and are so reckoned in our present Bi- 
bles. The ancient lists of the scriptural books show, that at 
first this combination was made thus : Judges and Ruth were 
united as one ; I. II. Samuel as one ; I. II. Kings as one ; 
I. II. Chronicles as one ; Ezra and Nehemiah as one ; Jere- 
miah and the Lamentations as one ; the twelve prophets as 
one. The reason of the combination in the first five cases is 
very plain. The historical matter of the books is continuous 
and successive. In the sixth case, it is very plain that Jere- 
miah is reckoned as including the Lamentations, because both 
are the work of one author, and the latter is an appendix 



§ 12. SAMEXES3 OF THE JEWISH CAXOX. 263 

■which shows the fulfilment of his prophecy. As to the twelve 
Minor Prophets it would seem that they -were comprised in 
one, i. e. in one roll or volume, on account of their brevity. 
Jerome (ut sup.) speaks of the Hebrews as usually counting 
five of the books as double, because they have the same num- 
ber of letters in the alphabet wmich have two forms, viz. 1= , 
tin , )i , CjS , "ps ; and, corresponding with these, they reckon 
Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Jeremiah, as being 
double or consisting of two parts.* But this is somewhat 
more fanciful or arbitrary than the numbering of the books in 
general according to the letters of the alphabet ; inasmuch as 
it does not reach or account for all the cases of combination. 
The union of Judges and Ruth, and also of the twelve minor 
prophets still remains to be accounted for. 

With the light which w"e obtain from Jerome, we may now 
go back to Josephus, and ask how he must have made out 
his triplex division, viz. the Law, the Prophets, the Hymns 
and Maxims of Life, and at the same time have made only 
twenty-tivo books in the whole. 

The matter is easy and obvious. (1) The five books of 
the Pentateuch, in the order in which they have always stood 
and still stand. (2) We must call to mind, that prophets is 
a designation, among the Hebrew's, of any writer who is, or 
is believed to be, inspired ; and that of course it may, and 
does, comprehend the historians as well as those who uttered 
predictions. According to Josephus, then, Prophets compri- 
ses all the books which are historical or predictive. Of course 
his second division which, as he tells us, is comprised iv toiol 
xul dt'y.a ^i^liois, i. e. "in thirteen books," must include (1) 
Joshua. (2) Judges and Ruth. (3) I. II. Samuel. (4) I. 
II. Kings. (5) I. H. Chronicles. (6) Ezra and Xehemiah. 
(7) Esther. (S) Isaiah. (9) Jeremiah and Lamentations. 
(10) Ezekiel. (11) Daniel. (12) The twelve Minor Pro- 
phets. (13) Job. All these are historical or predictive. The 
book of Job is not an exception ; because Josephus doubtless 
regarded it in the light of a real history of Job, and as much 

* See the passage of Jerome in the Appendix. No. XI Y. 



264 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

a history as the book of Ruth, or Esther, although written 
poetically. That he did so reckon is plain, because the at 
lomai TtiycctQsg, i. e. the other remaining four boohs, he de- 
scribes as consisting of vpvoi y,ai V7tod~ijy.ca iov (iiov, i. e. 
hymns and maxims of life. I suppose it will not be conten- 
ded that v/xvoi does not characterize the Psalms ; and the 
other books must of course be the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and 
Canticles. And although the designation, hymns, or maxims 
of life, will not strictly apply to Canticles, yet here, as is com- 
mon in other cases, a potiori nomenfit, the name is given to 
four books from the altogether predominant part of them. 
Canticles is neither predictive nor historical, and so it would 
not class with the Prophets or second division of the Scrip- 
tures. The conclusion seems to be a necessary one, there- 
fore, that Josephus arranged his twenty-two books in the man- 
ner that has now been specified. 

This conclusion seems to amount to satisfactory certainty, 
when we examine all the early lists of the Old Testament 
books, which other writers have transmitted to us. The list 
of Melito combines the books of the Old Testament in the 
same manner as that which we have attributed to Josephus, 
with the single exception, that Judges is separated from Puth, 
and I. II. Samuel and I. II. Kings are combined into one 
book in four parts, as they were in the Septuagint, and are 
still, even down to the present time. Origen, who was fami- 
liar with the Hebrew Mss. of his day, gives the combination 
of books in just the same way as that which has been attri- 
buted to Josephus. The Council of Laodicea (360 — 364), 
in Can. 59, follow in the same track, making twenty-two books, 
in the same way as Josephus does. The only departure is 
in the case of Jeremiah, where they join Baruch and the 
epistles in the same book with that prophet, as well as the 
Lamentations. It has been supposed, that the apocryphal Ba- 
ruch was the one here designated, and so that it was anciently 
included in the book of Jeremiah. But of this I must doubt. 
Whoever reads Jer. xxxvi. xlv. will be satisfied, specially if 
he reflects on the disjointed condition in which the writings of 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 265 

this prophet formerly were, that the portions of Jeremiah's 
words which were written down by Baruch, and on a separate 
roll, might occasion the mistake here supposed to be made in 
the enumeration. 

In the same manner as Origen, Cyrill of Jerusalem reck- 
ons in his Catech. IV., thus making expressly twenty-two 
books. Gregory of Nazianzen (Carm. XXXIII.) follows in 
the same steps. Athanasius (Epist. fest. Opp. I. 961) has 
the same reckoning as Cyrill, only that Ruth is separated from 
Judges, and Esther is omitted, still making the number of 
books to be twenty-two, as usual. 

If we go to the Latin church, we find Jerome, the real 
head of that church and of all the fathers, as to criticism, 
making (in Prolog. Gal.) as has already been stated, twenty- 
two books, and coupling and combining several of them in 
the same manner as Origen. It is true, indeed, that he 
makes a somewhat different division of the books in so far as 
they belong respectively to the Prophets or to the Kethubim ; 
but this division exhibited by Jerome was a more recent af- 
fair among the Hebrews ; for so I think we shall, in the se- 
quel, see reason to believe ; just as the practice of counting 
twenty-four books (instead of twenty-two) had recently be- 
gun in the time of Jerome. This last usage, sanctioned by 
the Talmud, occasioned of course a separation of some of the 
books which had been combined together, in order to make 
out the number twenty-hoo. Important consequences are con- 
nected with the establishment of these suggestions, and on 
this account they must, in due time, occupy some of our at- 
tention. 

What is wanting in Josephus, in respect to specification 
of particulars, (and also in Sirachides and Philo), is fully and 
adequately supplied by writers who lived shortly afterwards, 
and by some who had an undoubted acquaintance with the 
Jewish language and literature, viz. Origen and Jerome. 
There is, as we have seen, such a uniformity in ancient testi- 
mony, as to the books which were combined and thus counted 
as one, that no reasonable doubt can remain in respect to this 
25 



266 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

point ; above all, it would seem that none could remain, when 
nearly all the ancient writers, who have given us lists of the 
sacred books of the Old Testament, have, in the same man- 
ner as Josephus, made out tvjenty-two books as belonging to 
it, and told us what several books were combined in order to 
count respectively as one. 

One consequence, of no small importance in criticism, may 
be drawn from the result of this investigation. This is, that 
the so called Hagiography, or third portion of the Hebrew 
Scriptures, was not, very anciently, what it is now, or what it 
was reckoned to be about the time of Jerome, and of the ori- 
gin of the Babylonish Talmud which was not long after. If 
this can be established, then the leading argument employed 
by the Liberalists to show the lateness of the composition — 
a lateness extending even down to the Maccabaean times, of 
Daniel, Chronicles, many of the Psalms, and perhaps some 
other scriptural books, or parts of books — is deprived at once 
of all its force. The argument runs thus : " No reason can 
be assigned, except the lateness of the composition, why Dan- 
iel and the Chronicles should be placed among the Kethubim 
or Hagiography, since the first belongs to the class of the 
latter prophets, and the second, like Samuel, Kings, etc., to 
the class of the former prophets. The fact, then, that Daniel 
and Chronicles are joined with the Kethubim, shows that 
they were written after the second class of the scriptural 
books, viz. the Prophets, was fully defined and completed. 
Now as this class comprises Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 
so we have conclusive evidence that Daniel and Chronicles 
must have been composed, or at all events introduced into the 
canon, at a period subsequent to that of Nehemiah and Mala- 
chi, which was about 430 — 420 B. C." 

This is specious, to say the least, at first view. But then 
it takes for granted some things which cannot be proved ; nay, 
I will venture to say, the contrary of which can be proved, 
or at least rendered highly probable. It takes for granted, 
that the Hieronymean and Talmudic limits of the Prophets 
and the Hagiography are the ancient and original limits ; 



§ 12. SAMENESS OP THE JEWISH CANON. 267 

which is far enough from being capable of proof. It takes 
for granted, that the main reason for inserting books among 
the class called the Hagiography, was the recent origin of the 
books, which must have been written, as they say, after the 
Prophets had become a definite and completed class. But, 
not to speak of the doubtful age of the book of Job, what shall 
be said of the great body of the Psalms, and of the book of 
Proverbs ? David and Solomon surely were not Maccabaean 
writers ; not to mention that the Jews, so far back as we 
know anything of their opinions, have always held the books 
of Ecclesiastes and Canticles to be the work of Solomon. 
Why were these then put into the Ilagiography ? for there 
they have been, ever since the triples division of the Jewish 
Scriptures was made. Such an argument, therefore, hits wide 
of the mark. Lateness of composition is not essential to a clas- 
sification with the Ilagiography. Moreover the Neologists take 
for granted, that the Prophets and the Kethubim have been, 
since their completion, fixed and uniform as to the number of 
books in each, and these always the same as they were at first; 
so that one may even build an argument on this assumption. 
But the sequel will show how little foundation there is, on 
which any one can erect such a superstructure. 

I am fully aware to what extent the Talmudie apportion- 
ment of the Hagiography has been admitted and sanctioned. 
Even Buxtorf, when he quotes the words of Josephus, de- 
scriptive of the third division of the sacred books, viz., " ai ds 
Xomol Tkooant^ vptvovg siq zbv &£or, y.ui zoig dv&QW7zoig vno- 
■0)';y.ag zov §iov tieqisxovoh', i. e. the remaining four [books] 
contain hymns to God, and maxims of life for men," feels 
compelled to add : " Obscure hoc, nee satis distincte," Comm. 
Mas. p. 28. He takes it for granted, that the Talmudie ar- 
rangement and partition of the books, is the genuine and 
most ancient one. So have the great mass of writers done ; 
as it would seem, without investigating the subject de novo. 
Josephus, it has been said, makes a classification peculiar to 
himself, and one which he constituted merely by having re- 
spect to the contents or matters discussed in the several books. 



268 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

But when the proof of this is demanded, we are merely re- 
ferred to Jerome and to the Talmud. To such a reference, 
however, I must beg leave to take some exceptions. 

It is clear at all events from Josephus, since he has af- 
firmed that the Hebrews have only twenty-two books, and also 
that five of these belong to the Pentateuch and thirteen to the 
Prophets, that of course only four books can be left for the 
Hagiography. These he says consist of hymns and practical 
maxims. This limitation of the number and description of the 
contents obliges us to resort to and fix upon the Psalms, Pro- 
verbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, as the constituent elements 
of the ancient Hagiography. This classification comes from 
a man, let it be remembered, who had a more intimate know- 
ledge of Hebrew opinions and history, than any other man of 
his time. He had no temptation, in this case, to represent 
the matter different from what it was. Nothing in regard to 
the interests of himself, or of his nation, depended on his 
mode of representing the Hagiography. He must have been 
acquainted with the custom of his nation, in regard to the 
matter of making the appointment or division of the sacred 
books. There was no inducement that we can conceive of 
to depart, in his representation, from the usual opinion — usual 
among the priests — in respect to the whole affair. A com- 
petent, an enlightened, an impartial, an honest, a disinterest- 
ed witness, has always a fair claim to be heard, and to be be- 
lieved too, so long as what he testifies is neither impossible 
nor improbable. Josephus was all this as a witness in the 
present case, and the thing testified looks altogether more 
probable and more inviting to confidence, than the Talmudic 
division of the Prophets and Kethubim. The division of Jo- 
sephus, (the word Prophets being understood in the sense 
which the Hebrews attached to it), is founded on a rational 
ground, viz. on the ground of the respectively different ma- 
terials or contents of the several classes of the sacred books. 
Hymns and Maxims of life are neither history nor prediction, 
and so they are classed by themselves, according to Josephus. 
But the Talmudic division of the sacred books depends on some 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 269 

conceits about the different gradations of inspiration, which 
are not only incapable of any satisfactory proof, but are in 
themselves quite improbable. The story of the Jewish doc- 
tors is, that the books of Moses take the precedence above 
all others, because God spake with him mouth to mouth ; that 
the Prophets who came after him, were such as, whether 
sleeping or waking when they received revelations, were de- 
prived of all the use of their senses, and were spoken to by a 
voice, and saw prophetic visions in ecstasy ; that the third 
and lowest class of the sacred writers were those, who, pre- 
serving the use of their senses, spake like other men, and 
yet in such a way that, although not favoured with dreams 
or visions in ecstasy, they still perceived a divine influence 
resting upon them, at whose suggestion they spoke or wrote 
what they made public. Of this last class, according to the 
Rabbins, were the authors of the Kethubim ; see Carpzov. 
Introd. ad Lib. Bib. V. Test. c. II. § 4 ; Abarbanel, Praef. 
Comm. in Job. ; D. Kimchi, Praef. in Psalm. ; Maimon. 
Moreh Neb. II. c. 45. 

Now that Moses, as the founder of the Jewish religion and 
leader of the nation when achieving its independence, whose 
laws were to be their statute book in all future generations 
until the coming of Christ — that such a distinguished person- 
age is entitled, from these considerations, to be placed at the 
head of all the Jewish teachers and leaders of ancient times, 
no one will doubt. That extraordinary revelations of God 
were made to him in a peculiar way, we need not call in ques- 
tion. Certainly, if we take the Pentateuch as our guide in 
such a matter, this must be conceded. But still, although the 
manner of communication with him was peculiar, it does not 
follow that what he uttered was more worthy of credit, than 
that which was uttered by other scriptural writers. Truth is 
truth, and cannot be any more than this. If the hagiogra- 
plial writers uttered what was true, (and the Jewish doctors 
all with one voice affirm that they did), then the Hagiography 
stands on the same level with the Pentateuch, in regard to its 
authenticity, and of course in regard to the credence which 
23* 



270 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

we should give to it and the respect that is due to it. I am 
far enough from asserting, that the contents of any and every 
book in the Old Testament are all of equal interest and im- 
portance. This is not and cannot be the case. In a great 
temple, built by one and the same architect, there are many 
parts of the edifice that retreat from notice, and are scarcely 
thought of by the beholder, and yet they are essential to the 
completeness of the building, and were as really the result of 
the architect's skill and plan, as the more prominent portions 
which throw themselves into the notice of all. So is it with 
God's ancient edifice. The Pentateuch constitutes if you 
please, the portico, the pillars, ikefagade, and the main apart- 
ment ; but there is many and many a subordinate portion of 
such a building, presenting itself scarcely at all to our notice, 
which is as really necessary to its full completeness, as the 
most conspicuous parts of the same. 

Even granting, then, that the Hagiography was written by 
men who, according to the Rabbins, used their senses, and 
were only occasionally inspired, it would not follow, that any 
derogation from its authenticity or credibility can be made 
out from this circumstance. Indeed they do not even pretend 
to say this. But still it is difficult, after admitting their 
grounds of classifying the Scriptures, to avoid the idea of a 
difference in the authority of each class, and in the credence 
due to each. Yet if the subject-matter of the scriptural books 
is really to be taken into account, and at the same time if it 
be conceded (as it is by them), that all the books are inspi- 
red, then we have a right to call on them to show us, how and 
why the book of Psalms and that of the Proverbs, (each in- 
cluded in the Hagiography), are, or are deemed to be, of in- 
ferior station or consequence. Nay so far is the true state of 
the case from this, that we may safely say, that these two 
books are of more practical avail under the Christian dispen- 
sation — more to the purposes of devotional piety and a well 
regulated life, than any other portion, I had almost said, more 
than all the rest of the Old Testament. 

Thus much for this renowned Eabbinical division of the 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 271 

Scriptures, as to this point of view. But there are other 
difficulties with it. " The prophets, forsooth, were men who 
were deprived of all use of their senses, when in an ecstatic 
state, and report to us only what they saw in visions and 
heard addressed to them !" And is this so ? What then is 
the seeing or the hearing, in this case ? But passing by this, 
I would ask : Had they no use of their senses, when they 
wrote down the revelations made to them ? Besides ; Paul 
taxes the Corinthian prophets with the abuse of their mirac- 
ulous powers or gifts ; how could they abuse them, if they 
were not free agents when possessing them ? Paul says, too, 
that " the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" 
(1 Cor. 14: 32) ; which could not be true of such prophets as 
the Babbies imagine. Besides ; what evidence is there to 
show, that such extraordinary and peculiar revelations were 
made to the writers of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, 
while the divine influence was altogether of a lower kind, 
which rested upon the writers of the Psalms, the Chronicles, 
Ezra, and the other books of the Jewish Kethubim ? 

In fact, the lowest gradation of inspiration, ascribed by the 
Babbies to the authors of the Kethubim, is as high as Chris- 
tianity demands, or, one may say, even permits us to ascribe 
to men. No man, not even Moses or Isaiah, was uniformly 
and always inspired. Of all God's messengers, only one re- 
ceived the gift of the Spirit without measure ; and he was 
the only one who never erred and never sinned. Others 
were inspired for a particular purpose, and (it may be) re- 
mained so, until that purpose was accomplished. Then they 
returned to their usual state. So it was with even Moses ; 
and so with all the other prophets or priests concerned with 
the writing of the 0. Test. Scriptures. How is the higher 
inspiration of the authors of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and 
Kings, to be proved, when no one can even tell who wrote 
these books ? Or in what respect as to the credence clue to 
them, do these compositions differ from those of Ezra, Kehe- 
miah, Esther, and Chronicles ? 

In fact, the whole affair is a mere Babbinical conceit, 



272 § 12. SA3IENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

Latched out during the dark ages of Rabbinism that preceded 
the composition of the Babylonish Talmud. 

Nor is the fact that there is no justifiable ground for the po- 
sition of the Jewish doctors in respect to the Prophets and the 
Kethubim, the only thing to be considered. Such a division, 
I acknowledge, might exist at an earlier period, although 
founded on phantasy or on caprice ; for there is enough of 
both these in the Mishna itself to show us, that a talent for 
the production of such things abounded among the Rabbies of 
earlier times. The question recurs, after we have seen the 
division which Josephus made of the sacred books : Whether 
others of the more ancient authorities agreed ivith him ? If 
they did, then has Josephus given us the usual division of the 
Scriptures at his time. 

The grandson of Jesus Sirachides, in describing the third 
class of Scriptures, or the Hagiography, calls them "the 
other [books] which follow v.az avrovg, in accordance with 
them [the Prophets] or of a like spirit ;" also " the other 
patrical (nazQtojv) books ;" and finally, " the rest of the Bi- 
ble, ra Xoma zwv fiipJotp ;" see p. 246 above. Sirachides 
himself describes the third division, by saying of the ancient 
Hebrew worthies : " They sought out the melody of music, they 
composed poems in writing ;" Sirach. 44: 5. Philo says of 
the Essenes, that they read not only the Law and the Pro- 
phets, but " hymns and other [books'], by which knowledge 
and piety are augmented and perfected ;" see p. 248 above. 
In the New Testament, Jesus himself speaks of " the Law, 
the Prophets, and the Psalms ;" Luke 24: 44, comp. 24: 27. 
The Psalms was in the same manner the leading book in the 
Hagiography of Josephus. 

In Melito, who comes next after Josephus, we find no ex- 
press designation of the triplex portions of the Old Testament ; 
for we find him following in all probability the arrangement 
of the Greek copy which he consulted, and which may or 
may not have agreed with some Hebrew copies of that time. 
Still he makes only twenty-two books, even if we include 
Esther, (which is now omitted in his list as represented in 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 273 

the extract from" Eusebius, but) which was in all proba- 
bility originally included by Melito himself; see p. 257 
above. In fact he makes, as we may say, a quadruplex 
division, the Law, the Historical Boohs (including Chroni- 
cles, but excluding Ezra), the Hagiography (which he ar- 
ranges in one continuous body, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesias- 
tes, and Canticles), and the Prophets. But he has evidently 
gone in the steps of Josephus as to the number of the books, 
and the combinations of them in order to make twenty-two. 
See App. No. IV. 

So is it too with Origen, who expressly declares there are 
twenty-two books, and who arranges the historical books in 
like manner as Melito, i. e. after the tenor of the order in the 
Sept. Notable is it, that he places Job and Esther last of all. 
He also brings the Hagiography of Josephus into immediate and 
local connection and consecution. In his list, moreover, which 
is cited by Eusebius, (as in the case of Melito above), one link 
in the chain of twenty-two is omitted, viz. the twelve Minor 
Prophets ; doubtless by mere mistake in transcribing ; see 
p. 260 above. There can be no reasonable doubt that the 
canon of Josephus is the canon of Origen, although he has 
yielded some deference to the Septuagint as to the arrange- 
ment of some particular books. See the original in Appen- 
dix No. V. 

Exactly in the same way are the books of the Old Testa- 
ment reckoned in the fifty-ninth Canon of the Council of Lao- 
dicea. These books are expressly said to be twenty-two ; and 
moreover the Chronicles immediately follow the Kings, and 
are followed themselves by Ezra, just as they are in the list 
of Origen ; i. e. here also the arrangement is partly in con- 
formity with that of the Septuagint. In the same manner the 
canon of the Council ranges together the books of the Hagi- 
ography, in conformity with what is indicated by Josephus. 
See Appendix No. VI. for the original. 

Cyrill of Jerusalem (Cat. IV.) presents another list in 
which he says expressly that there are but twenty-two books. 
His arrangement also is Septuagintal, and is the same as that 



274 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

of Origen, save that he assigns an earlier place to the book 
of Esther, along with the other historical books ; see App. No. 
VII. So is it with Gregory Nazianzen, II. Carm. XXXIII ; 
see Appendix No. VIII. The like is true of Athanasius ; 
who, (in his Epist. Fest. I. p. 961), makes in general the 
same number and order of books as Cyrill of Jerusalem, i. e. 
twenty-two books arranged generally in the manner of the 
Septuagint. But there is this difference between them, viz. 
Athanasius counts Ruth by itself, and omits Esther ; which 
seems to favour the supposition that he meant to omit Esther, 
inasmuch as he makes twenty-two without it. Indeed in the 
sequel, he expressly mentions Esther among the books " ov 
xavoi%6/xEva fih . . . dvayivcoaxopeva ds, not canonical, 
but permitted to be read," viz. by the catechumens, and these 
books, he tells us, were such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the 
Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, and Tobit. See Appendix No. IX. 
In the Synopsis Script. Sac. in Athanas. Opp. II. p. 126 seq., 
the very same thing is said respecting Esther and the apoc- 
ryphal books, with the declaration that " they are read only 
by catechumens," i. e. they are not publicly read with the 
proper Scriptures. See Appendix No. X. 

Epiphanius (De Mens, et Ponder c. 22, 23) avers, that the 
Hebrews numbered only twenty-two books, so as to corre- 
spond with their alphabet, making five of the books double, 
"just as five letters of the alphabet are double," i. e. have two 
forms. He includes Esther in his list ; but he makes a dif- 
ferent division of the books from that of any other ancient 
writer. Job is placed after Joshua, the Psalms after Judges 
and Ruth, the Chronicles before Samuel and Kings, the 
Twelve Prophets before the others, etc. ; evidently an attempt 
at a kind of chronological arrangement in conformity with the 
views of the author. See App. No. XI. 

The Council of Hippo (A. D. 393), in Can. XXXVI, ad- 
mit indeed several of the apocryphal books into their Canon ; 
but they preserve all the Jewish ones, and put Daniel between 
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Chronicles next after Kings; 
thus showing that no regard was paid by them to such an or- 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 275 

der as the Talmudic ; See Appendix No. XII. With this 
agrees cap. 47 of the third Council of Carthage (A. D. 397) ; 
Mansi, Concil. Coll. III. 891. See in App. No. XIII. 

Jerome, (Prol. Gal.) as we have seen p. 251 above, makes 
twenty-two books of the Hebrew Scriptures, and arranges the 
Law, the Prophets, and Hagiography mostly in like manner 
with the Talmud ; but still he comprises only nine books in 
the Kethubim, while the Talmudists make eleven. He then 
goes on to say, that " some [so did the Eabbins of that day] 
enrol Ruth and Lamentations among the Hagiography, [in- 
stead of uniting them with Judges and Jeremiah, as he does], 
and think that they should be reckoned among their number, 
and thus the books of the Old Testament would amount to 
twenty-four" Here then is the very first notice of this novel 
method of making out ticenty-four books ; and at the same 
time it is the first express information which we have of a 
triplex division of the Scriptures differing, as to the particular 
books comprised, from that of Josephus. The Eabbins of 
his day, with whom he studied so long in Palestine, had, as 
it would seem, already made this innovation upon the ancient 
arrangement both as to order and as to number, and from them 
he learned it. See the whole passage in Appendix No. 
XIV. 

Hilary (Prol. in JPsalm.) states the books of the Old Tes- 
tament to be twenty-two ; but he adds, that " to some it 
seemed good, by adding Tobit and Judith, to make out twen- 
ty-four books, according to the number of letters in the Greek 
alphabet." The some here spoken of must of course have 
been found among Christians ; for that the Jews admitted the 
books in question to their Palestine Canon, there is not one 
spark of evidence. Everything shows the contrary. See 
App. No. XV. 

Eufinus (Expos, in Symb. Apost.), a contemporary of Je- 
rome and Hilary, reckons twenty-two books, following in the 
main the order of the Septuagint. In his canon all our pre- 
sent scriptural Hebrew books are included ; Daniel is placed 
where we place him, and Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and 



276 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

Canticles, come last ; the very copy, in this respect, of Jo- 
sephus' Canon. See App. No. XVI. 

From this somewhat extensive range of investigation, it 
seems perfectly evident, that the Hagiographal division of the 
Scriptures, as taught by Rabbies to Jerome, and afterwards 
sanctioned by the Talmud, belonged at this period only to 
some of the Jewish schools, and had no concern with the usu- 
al and general classification. I can find nothing in all anti- 
quity that hints at such a classification as theirs, before the 
notice which Jerome takes of it ; although it has so often 
been talked about, and reasoned from, as if it had long pre- 
ceded the Christian era. 

The question I take to be now finally settled, that the 
Babylonish Talmud itself was not originated until after or 
about the time of Jerome, i. e. at the close of the fourth and 
the beginning of the fifth century, and not completed at least 
until the sixth century. The traditional authors, who com- 
menced the work, were Rabbi Ashi and Rabbi Jose. The 
huge Mish-mash which this work contains, must have been the 
production of many heads and many hands. But the au- 
thority, which it has ever retained among the superstitious 
and Pharisaic Jews, is almost without limits. In fact, like 
the Romish traditions, it has been placed above the Scriptures 
themselves. The Rabbins are accustomed to say : " The 
Scripture is water, but the Talmud is wine." Hence it is easy 
to see why it has had so much influence on the arrangement 
of the Hebrew Scriptures, for some 1200 years. The passage 
which has settled this matter for the Jews is in the Tract. 
Baba Bathra, fol. 14. col. 2, and runs as follows : b\ti p^O 
rrwi ^pm^i fvwi d^ai ^xiaiB d^d&VBi sibis-p d^sj 
r&npi ^iaai dTW d^ris-i riv-i d^iro *j'B pid • • • iibs> d^iBi 
sbTDin "rayi -ir.&jt ^jom mipi d^iiin tub i. e. "the order of 
the Prophets is thus : Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, 
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve [minor pro- 
phets] . . . The order of the Kethubim is thus: Ruth, Psalms 
and Job, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs 
and Lamentations, Daniel, Esther and the Chronicles." 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 277 

I have omitted the Pentateuch, because the order of that 
is every where and always one and the same. I would fur- 
ther remark, that as to the order of the books in the Prophets 
and Kethubim, and even the number of them respectively,, 
there is no uniformity among the highest Jewish authorities.. 
The Talmudists make twenty-four books, and arrange them 
as above. But the Masorites, whom I should regard as of 
higher authority, arrange the leading prophets thus : Isaiah, 
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve ; while the Kethubim are thus 
arranged : Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Buth, Canticles, Ecclesi- 
astes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Chronicles. Both 
make twenty-four books, but in quite a diverse order. The 
Spanish Mss., and all the Hebrew Bibles printed from them, 
follow the Masorites with some slight variations under the 
Kethubim ; the German Mss., and printed editions mostly fol- 
low the Talmud, but also with variations of the like kind. In 
making out twenty-four books, Ruth is separated from Judges, 
and Lamentations from Jeremiah ; which, on the contrary, Je- 
rome unites respectively in one book, and so makes twenty-two 
of the whole. Nearly all antiquity counted I. II. Samuel, 
I. II. Kings, I. II. Chronicles, and Ezra and Nehemiah, re- 
spectively, as one book ; the Septuagint count the four first 
of these as four parts of one and the same book, which they 
name Kings. 

Different from the order both of the Talmud and the Ma- 
sorites, is that of Origen and Jerome. Both of them make 
only tiventy-two books. But Origen places Chronicles and 
Ezra immediately after kings ; Jerome, near the end of the 
Kethubim, (for with him the closing part of the Canon stands 
thus : Chronicles, Ezra, Esther). Origen places Psalms, Pro- 
verbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job, next after Ezra (including 
Nehemiah) ; Jerome's arrangement after the book of Kings 
is thus : Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve. Origen ar- 
ranges after Job thus : the Twelve, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
Daniel ; Jerome puts Daniel among the Hagiography, and 
next before Chronicles. As the extract from Origen in Eu- 
sebius omits the Twelve, we should not know how Origen ar- 
24 



27& § 12. SAMENESS OP THE JEWISH CANON, 

ranged them, had not Rufinus given us a version of him. In 
this, the Twelve stands next after Canticles and before Job. 
Comp. the lists of Origen and Jerome, in App. Nos. V. XIV. 
I have now given the reader a fair specimen of the leading 
arrangements of the Hebrew Scriptures in ancient times, as 
it respects the Prophets and the Kethubim. No two are 
alike. Even the Masorites and the Talmudists differ from 
each other ;. Jerome differs from both, and Origen from him. 
And so, if we compare Melito, the Laodicean Council, the 
Apostolic Canons, Cyrill, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, 
Hilary, Epiphanius, the Council of Hippo, Jerome, Rufinus, 
etc., scarcely any two of them are alike throughout. And 
this is almost the case even with Mss. and editions in later 
times. 

As to the conceit of twenty-four books, instead of twenty- 
two, it must have been a late affair, as has already been sug- 
gested. The Talmud made this out by separating Judges 
and Ruth, Jeremiah and Lamentations. Sixtus Senensis, in 
his Biblioth. Sanct. I. p. 2, has given us the alleged reasons 
of the Jews for such an arrangement. These are a fit accom- 
paniment of the arrangement itself. The substance is, that 
the ancient Jews wrote the unpronounceable name of Jeho- 
vah thus tii , i. e. with three Yodhs, (which of course com- 
prise great mysteries), and so they added two more books to 
the number 22, in order to correspond with the Yodh thrice 
repeated in honour of the name of Jehovah. The Greek 
Versions would naturally and easily adopt the number twen- 
ty-four, because it corresponded with the Greek alphabet. 
The Christians had another reason, according to Sixtus, for 
admitting twenty-four books ; which was, that John, in the 
Apocalypse, has introduced twenty-four elders as adoring him 
who was about to open the sealed book ! 

Trifling and futile as all this is, yet from the authority and 
example of the Talmud, the Twenty-Four has even become a 
technical name of the Hebrew Scriptures ; and it stands on 
the first page as a title (jn.sa^l B" ,k ?©?) to the majority of 
Mss. and editions. All antiquity however made, as we have 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 279 

seen, but twenty-two ; and in this respect the assertion of Jo- 
sephus, that the Jews have twenty-two sacred books, stands 
most amply sustained and justified. 

Important consequences flow from these investigations and 
conclusions. I can mention only a few of them, which have 
respect to views often presented by some recent critics, and 
which have a slender support indeed in the history of the 
Canon. 

(1) It has become general to speak of Chronicles, as the 
last book in the Hebrew Canon, and to draw important con- 
clusions as to the authenticity -of this composition from this 
source. Eichhorn (Einl. § 7), De Wette (Einl. § 10, and 
Comm. in Matt. 23: 35), and many others, appeal to Matt. 
23: 35 as certain evidence, that the book of Chronicles was 
the last in the Old Testament in our Saviour's day. The 
words in question are : " That on you [the Jews] may come 
all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of 
the righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Bara- 
chias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." 
Here, says Eichhorn and others after him, is an example 
taken from the first and the last part of the Jewish Scriptures, 
and the design of Jesus evidently is, to say that on the Jews 
should come the consummation of punishment for all the mar- 
tyrdoms related from first to last in their Scriptures. Con- 
sequently the book of Chronicles must have stood last in their 
sacred volume. 

Notwithstanding the all but universal assent to this method 
of reasoning, I must still believe that it has not any solid ba- 
sis. How does it follow, that the book of Chronicles is the 
last in the whole volume, when the Kethubim of Josephus, 
viz. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, yea all the 
books that we commonly name prophets, might have stood af- 
ter the Chronicles, and yet the reasoning have still been the 
same as most critics now suppose it to be ? The reasoning is 
founded on the historical part, and that only, of the Old Tes- 
tament ; and it is enough of course to answer all its demands, 
that the book of Chronicles was the last in the historical se- 



280 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

ries. It is mere gratuitous assumption to suppose any more ; 
for the present arrangement in our English Bibles would 
support the reasoning in question, just as well as the present 
Jewish arrangement of the Hebrew Scriptures. 

But there are several things, on the other hand, to show 
that the whole process of the reasoning here, as well as the 
assumed historical basis of it, is altogether incapable of any 
adequate defence. (1) The Zechariah of 2 Chron. 24: 19 — 
22, to which the critics in question appeal, was the son of 
Jehoiada, and not of Barachias as Christ declares. The 
conciliation of the two passages, by supposing that Zechari- 
ah's father bore both the names of Jehoiada and Barachias, 
is unsatisfactory in this case ; for why should we suppose 
that the Saviour appealed to any other name of Zechariah's 
father than that which is mentioned in the Old Testament, in 
case he really meant to designate the Zechariah of 2 Chron. ? 
But the Neologists have a shorter method : ' The Evange- 
list's recollection was faulty, and he wrote Barachias where 
Jesus had named Jehoiada.' I am not prepared, however, to 
admit this solution. I cannot bring myself to believe, that 
Jesus would have made such an appeal as is here supposed. 
Examine for a moment the chronology of this martyrdom ; 
for its date must at least be some 840 years before Christ. 
And are eight centuries and a half to be leaped over, in such 
a representation, because no martyrdoms, no persecutions by 
the Jews, could be found in all that period ? This is contra- 
ry to probability, and contrary to fact. I affirm the latter, 
because Jeremiah (26: 23) tells us, that Jehoiakim (about 
600 B. C.) brought Urijah the Prophet out of Egypt, whith- 
er he had fled, and slew him with the sword. Here then is 
a martyr-murder 200 years and more after that of Zechariah 
the son of Jehoiada. What is to be said also of Manasseh's 
murders, who " filled Jerusalem with innocent blood," more 
than a century after the murder of Zechariah ? And besides 
all this, did not the partizans of Antiochus Epiphanes, such 
men as Jason and his compeers, persecute and destroy pious 
persons living in their days ? The denial of all this would 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 281 

be in part a denial of what is certain, and in part of what in 
all respects is probable. Jews who could sell themselves to 
Antiochus in order to introduce the heathen rites, must needs 
persecute those who stood in the way of their nefarious de- 
signs. In a word, to terminate the history of Jewish perse- 
cutions at a period of 800 and more years before the Chris- 
tian era, in an indignant charge of accumulated guilt upon 
the nation, is in itself incredible ; I must say — to my mind it 
is preposterous. Yet such is the reasoning of the critics in 
question. 

(2) It is not at all essential or capable of proof, that the 
histories which we have of the Jews after their return and 
down to the Christian era, altogether imperfect and few as 
they are, should have preserved an account of the murder of 
Zechariah, as mentioned by the Saviour. A comparatively 
recent murder of such a man might have taken place, and yet 
not have been related at all by Josephus ; for we well know 
that his silence is not any proof that certain things did not 
take place, e. g. the massacre by Herod at Bethlehem, the 
Saviour's appearance, claims, miracles, etc.* That we lack 
the history of the son of Barachias, is no evidence that there 
was no such person. A prophet he is not said to be in Matt. 
24: 35 ; it is only said that his blood was that of the righteous. 
And if in Luke 11: 51 he seems to be called a prophet, yet it 
is plainly in that sense in which distinguished pious men in 
general are sometimes called prophets in the Old Testament; 
(e. g. in 1 Chron. 16: 22. Ps. 105: 15) ; for here Abel is also 
named as a prophet, in the same sense as Zechariah. No 
good reason can be given, then, why Jesus should not, or did 
not, refer to some recent event in the way of murderous per- 
secution. The very nature of the case renders this highly 
probable. Particularly does the mention of the minute cir- 
cumstance, that " Zacharias was slain between the temple and 

* After all the defences that have been made of the passage in Jose- 
phus respecting Christ, I feel constrained to say of it : Sapit emenda- 
torem. To me it seems that Josephus must have said more, if he said 
anything. 

24* 



282 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

the altar," savour of an event which was fresh in the recol- 
lection of the Jews who were addressed. And then the 
charge implied in iyovevoatE, ye slew, has all the appearance 
<of imputing personal guilt. In fact it must involve it. 

(3) But if any one insists that we must needs have some 
■other historical account of the murder of a later or recent 
Zacharias, than that apparently contained in the Evangelist ; 
why may we not give credit to Origen, who (in Tract. XXVI. 
an Matt.) states that Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, 
was murdered by the Jews in the temple ? He again asserts 
this in Tom. XI. in Matt. p. 225 ed. Huet. Basil, Gregory of 
Nyssa, Cyrill of Alexandria, Peter of Alexandria, Theophy- 
lact, and others, agree with Origen in this statement ; Thilo, 
Cod. Apoc. N. Test. I. Prol. LXIV. In the Protevangelium 
Jacobi, the most respectable and perhaps the oldest of all the 
apocryphal gospels (Origen makes mention of it), the murder 
•of the same Zacharias is circumstantially related, cap. XXIII. 
seq. It is plain, then, that a very general tradition existed 
in ancient times, as to the murder of Zacharias the father of 
John, by the Jews, and probably by Herod's instigation. It 
is no objection to the truth of this, that the father of Zachari- 
.as is not mentioned in Luke 1: 5. Barachias was a very 
common name among the Jews, and might well have been 
the name of Zacharias' father. The probability that the 
opinion of Origen and other ancients is correct here, is even 
strengthened, by that exegesis of Luke 11: 51, which would 
make Zacharias a prophet in the usual sense of that word ; 
for Luke 1: 67 — 79 plainly represents him as uttering pro- 
phecy. 

Why may we not conclude now, that neither the evange- 
lists have made a mistake about the son of Barachias ; nor 
the Saviour charged on the Jews the commission of a deed 
done more than eight centuries before ? And above all, why 
may we not say, that the whole of the conclusions about the 
book of Chronicles and its location, which are built on assum- 
ing for it the last place in the Hebrew Scriptures, is " such 
stuff as dreams are made of?" Nay, I venture to say, that 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 283 

the assumption in question is historically and demonstrably 
false. Josephus so represents the Kethubim, that the Chron- 
icles are excluded, and must have been united with the divi- 
sion of the Prophets ; as Philo had done before him, and also 
the New Testament. The first list of the successive and par- 
ticular books of the Hebrew Scriptures which we have, is 
that of Melito (about 170 A. D.), which places Chronicles 
next after Kings ; the same does Origen in his list ; the same 
does the Council of Laodicea, the Canones Apostol., Cyrill 
of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, the Synopsis 
Scripturae in Athanas. Opp., Epiphanius (who even puts it 
before Kings), the Council of Hippo (A. D. 393), Hilary, and 
Kufinus. Jerome, who drank in Rabbinical lore for twenty 
years, is the only father among all of any name, who puts 
Chronicles among the Kethubim ; and he puts after it Ezra 
(including Nehemiah), and Esther. Besides all this, the very 
fact that the Septuagintal arrangement preserves the same 
order as all the early fathers, in regard to the book of Chron- 
icles, shows that the Hebrew Mss. from which they translated 
did not exhibit the Talmudical arrangement, but plainly that 
of Josephus. Most of the lists of books, to which I have now 
referred, specifically declare, that they give the books as they 
are arranged by the Jews. 

It is out of all critical question, then, to admit that Chroni- 
cles was the last book of Scripture in our Saviour's time ; 
and out of all question to admit those views in criticism, which 
are built merely on the assumption of such a fact. The Lib- 
eralists must give us some reasons better than such ones, in 
order to induce us to walk in the paths that they pursue. 

In this connection, let us return once more, for a moment, 
to the book of Daniel. As I have already stated, the main 
argument against the genuineness of the book, independently 
of its account of miraculous or strange events, is that which 
is drawn from the alleged fact, that the work has been assign- 
ed to the division of the Kethubim ; and so, as the process of 
reasoning is, it must have been composed long after the time 
when Daniel is said to have lived, and after the division em- 



284 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

bracing the Prophets was brought to a close and completed. 
But what says fact? Josephus' arrangement necessarily, as 
we have seen, includes Daniel among the Prophets. Of 
course when this is settled, it follows with almost absolute 
certainty, that the son of Sirach, Philo, and the New Testa- 
ment writers, do the same, inasmuch as they classify the sa- 
cred books in the same manner as he does. We know for 
certainty this fact in respect to the book of Daniel, as it con- 
cerns the later writers ; for we have their lists both of the 
names and the order of all the books. Melito places Daniel 
among the prophets and before Ezekiel. The same does Ori- 
gen. The Council of Laodicea place Daniel next after 
Ezekiel, and of course among the prophets. The same do 
the Canones Apostol., Cyrill of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazian- 
zen, Athanasius, Synopsis Scripturae in Athanas. Opp., (in 
Epiphanius, de Mens, et Ponder, the book is by some mis- 
take omitted). The Council of Hippo, like Melito and Ori- 
gen, place it before Ezekiel, as also does Hilary ; and Eufinus 
places it next after Ezekiel. Like Josephus, too, this last 
writer puts at the close of the sacred volume the Hagio- 
graphal books, viz. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. 
Jerome alone, in giving an account of the Rabbinical usage 
in his day, puts Daniel among the Hagiography ; and after 
it he puts Chronicles, Ezra (with iSTehemiah), and Esther. 
The Talmud then stands alone in placing the book of 
Daniel among the Hagiography, with the exception that Je- 
rome makes the like arrangement, in giving an account of 
what was customary in his time among the Rabbins who had 
taught him. But even he does not accord with the Talmud, 
either as to the number or the order of the books in the Pro- 
phets and Kethubim. All this proves, beyond a question, 
what a variety there was in the arrangement of particular 
books of the Scriptures, and how little of significance was ori- 
ginally attached to this circumstance. The Septuagint Ver- 
sion, it must surely be admitted, was made from Hebrew 
Mss. ; and how comes it to pass that the arrangement is so 
different here from that of the Talmud ? The proof that 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 285 

Daniel, among the ancients universally, was regarded as one 
of the prophets, is above all exception. The fact that Jose- 
phus extracts so copiously from him, and speaks of him as 
one of the greatest of all the prophets, cannot be disguised. 
Near the close of Antiq. X. he says : " Daniel was distin- 
guished and illustrious because of the glory of being the friend 
of God. . . . He was wonderfully fortunate as one of the 
greatest prophets ; and during his life time he had much hon- 
our and fame from kings and from the multitude, and now 
when dead he has an everlasting remembrance." Our Sa- 
viour too has said of a certain prediction, that it was " uttered 
by Daniel the prophet ;" Matt. 24: 15. Mark 13: 14. 

We have now had opportunity to see, how utterly incon- 
gruous the Talmudic arrangement of the Scriptures is with 
all the other ancient testimony respecting this matter — testi- 
mony, by the way, which is all of it older than that of the 
Talmud. Even the Masorites of Tiberias, although they 
agree with the Talmudists as to the twenty-four books of 
Scripture, and as to the number of books respectively be- 
longing to the Hagiography and to the Prophets, do still re- 
fuse to accede to the preposterous arrangement of placing 
the greater Prophets in the order of the Talmud, viz. Jere- 
miah, Ezekiel, Isaiah. The Masorites and every ancient 
authority, one and all, unanimously declare the order to be 
thus : Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. It is worth our while to 
listen for a moment to the reason of the Talmudists for their 
peculiar arrangement, in order that we may learn how to ap- 
preciate their decision in such matters : rrs-0 &t&sri "jTa 
rps-ci n:"t; nxri ";xpTrri aonTin wfcia Wrb'Trn smiti 
srraroi Swvw6 Bttaitn "pisss xr^ns ir&na rr^un xrrara 
SMSTO^ ; i. e. ' since the book of Kings ends in desolation, 
and all of Jeremiah is desolation ; and Ezekiel in the 
commencement is desolation, and at the close, consolation ; 
and Isaiah is all consolation, they [the men of the Great Syn- 
agogue] joined desolation to desolation [Jeremiah to the close 
of the book of Kings], and consolation to consolation [Isaiah 
to the last part of Ezekiel].' Yet so incongruous is this, that 



286 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

Abarbanel (Pref. in Coinm. in Is.) does not hesitate to say : 
" Truly our predecessors, the sons of the captivity, did not 
arrange the books thus [viz. as the Talmud does], but they 
placed Isaiah at the head." 

Enough for this topic. Clear as the light is it, that if any 
regard is to be paid to all the testimony of antiquity which 
precedes the Talmud, the decisions of the latter as to the 
number or order of the books in the Prophets and Hagiogra- 
phy, are entitled to little or no authority. All the reasoning 
and conclusions about certain books in the Bible, which are 
built on the Talmudic arrangement of particulars, must of 
course be without any good foundation. In fact, as already 
remarked, the Septuagintal arrangement of the Scriptural 
books, which at all events preceded the Christian era, does 
of itself demonstrate, that when it was made, the Hebrew 
originals did not follow the Talmudic order. 

If the reader has still any scruples whether he is not to be 
bound by the decisions of the Talmudic doctors, in relation 
to critical matters, of this kind, it is proper that he should 
turn his attention for a moment to their decision in regard 
to the authorship of the Old Testament books. It runs thus : 
"And who wrote them ? [the Old Testament books]. Moses 
wrote his book, and the section of Balaam, and Job. Joshua 
wrote his book, and eight verses in the Law ; Samuel wrote 
his book, Judges, and Ruth ; David wrote the book of 
Psalms, with the assistance of ten of the elders, by the aid of 
Adam the first man, of Melchizedek, of Abraham, of Moses, of 
Heman, of Jeduthun, of Asaph, and of the three sons of Korah. 
Jeremiah wrote his book, and the book of Kings and Lamen- 
tations. Hezekiah and his assistants wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, 
Canticles, and Coheleth [Ecc] ; the symbol of which is 
p"i!5ai . The men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel 
and the Twelve, Daniel and the volume of Esther ; the sym- 
bol of which is 5n:p . Ezra wrote his book and the genealo- 
gy of the book of Chronicles down to himself.* Talm. Bab. 
Megil. fol. 10. c. 2. 

sns Show : aviflh asfca rwisi nso nns nioa "pro im * 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 287 

Much comment on this would be unseemly here. The as- 
sertion that Moses wrote Job, will hardly stand before the 
tribunal of criticism. That Samuel wrote his book (which of 
course includes I. II. Sam.), which continues the Jewish histo- 
ry down to more than forty years after his death, it would re- 
quire strong faith to believe. What Psalms Adam, Melchize- 
dek, and Abraham wrote, the Talmudists might find it some- 
what difficult to show. That Jeremiah wrote the book of Kings, 
which carries the history down to the thirty-seventh year of Je- 
hoiachin's captivity, is very improbable. He must, at any rate, 
have been more than a century old by that time. That Hez- 
ekiah and his helpers wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 
and Canticles, is downright folly to assert, in any other sense 
than that they made a copy of these books, or (as we say) 
copied them out. It is singular, that the word izro , which 
the Talmudists have here employed, should have been so 
much controverted. Eertholdt, and after him Havernick and 
others, insist upon its being rendered introduced, as if it were 
the equivalent of WQS1 ; which seems to me little short of a 
monstrosity in philology. Others have supposed tofiSi to 
mean, as often elsewhere, wrote in the sense of composing ; 
which would be attributing more absurdity to the Talmudists 
than they were probably guilty of. The truth of the matter 
seems to be very simple, zrz in Hebrew, like the verb write 
in English, may mean either the composition of a book in- 
cluding the act of writing it down, or it may mean merely 
the ^ict of an amanuensis or copyist which reduces it to wri- 
ting. There can be no reasonable doubt, that the Talmu- 

:rvm biaBlEI ri3& zrz bxv:-' : rrTinh© j-»p1&3 "■-■:;- -j- 
■v-x-n hix i^i £>s z.*-:pi n-r- ■-- ■"• b^s-in 120 z\rz tA 
""■■ -"-n --- ;:- nsa ---■ £>3l drHzivi -^ b?*, pix'oba 11 bv 
nn= rrxQ-ri : Kp 1:3 httto *n bv\ rox ■•-11 b~i -ir--- —^ 
-....„. ,. on& p"- r - : - »- r= tj-z- rrpr- : r,i;pi *z\- -zz- —zz 
)&«q ~/-i:p -zrz ftViisi rz:z -i:x : hbfipl z—-- TUB -r-2 
dvpi t-so z\tq x-" 1 : -rtx ritoi -' ?x-:i -r- z---- bspvi-p 

itf n? wsfri *iai to 



288 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

dists borrowed the sentiment respecting the doings of Heze- 
kiah and his assistants from Prov. 25: 1, where it is said : 
" These are the Proverbs of Solomon, which the men of He- 
zekiah king of Judah ^p^FiSfi , copied out." So our English 
Version ; and it seems to have hit the mark exactly. The 
verb pn^, in conj. Hiphil, means to transfer ; hence to trans- 
fer from one book into another, i. e. to copy out; see Ges. 
Lex. The Talmud, instead of saying the men of Hezekiah 
(as the Bible does), says Hezekiah and his assistants (ins^O ; 
and instead of ^ipirn'ri , they employ *Qn3 as its equivalent. 
But as the part of Proverbs thus copied out comprises only 
five chapters, where they obtained ground for naming the 
whole book as copied out, and for adding Canticles and Ec- 
clesiastes to this, i. e. adding all the supposed works of Sol- 
omon ; above all whence they obtained the information that 
Isaiah was also copiedout by Hezekiah and his assistants ; is 
more than I can conjecture. Not improbably the interest 
which that good king took in this renowned prophet, and the 
deference that he paid to him, may have occasioned the guess 
in question ; for more than guess it does not seem to be. 

The men of the Great Synagogue are said ' to have copied 
out [for public use ?] Ezekiel, the Twelve, Daniel, and the 
volume of Esther.' Here sfirfi is employed in the same way 
as before, beyond all reasonable doubt. So De Wette, Einl. 
§ 14; and to the same purpose Rashi, i. e. Rabbi Solomon 
Jarchi (f 1105), who undertakes to explain and to vindicate 
this passage of the Talmud in his Comrn. in Baba Bathra. 
His words are worth quoting, in order to display the genius 
of Rabbinic commentators : " The men of the Great Syna- 
gogue wrote out (or copied) Ezekiel, who prophesied in exile. 
And I know not why Ezekiel did not write it [the book] out 
himself, except that prophecy is not given for any one to 
write it in a foreign country. They [the Great Synagogue] 
wrote it out after they returned to the holy land. And so, in 
respect to the book of Daniel who lived in exile ; and so, in 
regard to the volume of Esther. And as to the Twelve 
Prophets, because their prophecies were brief, the prophets 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 289 

did not themselves write them down, each one his own book. 
But when Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi came [to the holy 
land], and saw that the Holy Spirit was about to depart, in- 
asmuch as they were the last prophets, then they rose up and. 
wrote down their prophecies, and joined those of the minoir 
prophets with them, and thus made one large book, so that 
they might not be destroyed (or lost) on account of their 
smallness."* 

It is with great difficulty that one can be brought to believe,, 
that a man of so much intelligence as Jarchi was really seri- 
ous in giving such an account of this matter. Men forsooth r 
according to him, could be inspired as prophets, when in ex- 
ile, but it was unlawful to write down their compositions while 
in that state ! And then nine prophets of the twelve did not 
write down their own compositions, because they were short ! 
Were the Psalms then, which are shorter still, not written 
down by their authors ? And could not the nine prophets 
who composed without writing, foresee the danger of their 
works being lost or perverted, while committed to the keep- 
ing of merely oral tradition, as well as the three who pro- 
vided against such a catastrophe ? But it is useless to reason 
against the putid conceits of Rabbins devoted to the Talmud. 
And besides all that has been now said, I would merely ask 
the question : Is it not plain, that, even on Talmudic ground, 
the real authorship of many of the Old Testament books, and 
parts of books, remains undisclosed ? The information given 
is neither extensive enough to cover the ground which it pro- 
mi i3->xi spiVm X33r3r bxpTni ■nrz-np-mn r.033 itttta * 
.-1X133 n:r3 x?r ^sh x'p cx i»2S3> ?xp?m una x'p rra!> 
px^si 130 pi yixp ifcoia inxb ipx iDXDi yixp nsin srcnfr 
rvriiftona wis -t- --v =-:--i irox rb^-o pi npi53 mma 

5-P12T i5n 1X31 1120 w'^X S^X 3":^^ D">Xi32n 13r3 XP tlliUp 

nssi Dwinx a^x--33 en wvo pbrov aiipn mi 1x11 *»3Xp»i 
biia iso tmawi ttas ms-jp nixiai is-nui omnix.isa isnsi 

:D3ap nsrra 113x1 xinD 

25 



290 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

fesses to cover, nor in any measure satisfactory as to that 
which it does cover. 

Such are the authorities, then, for the ancient division of 
the Hebrew Scriptures into twenty-four books ; such for ar- 
ranging Isaiah after Jeremiah and Ezekiel ; such for mixing 
together prophecy, history, and lyric poetry and proverbs, all 
under one category, the Kethubim, when the nature of the case 
and the voice of antiquity were against it. It is in vain to in- 
quire now what conceits led them in such a direction. No 
one can fathom the depths of Talmudic criticism. The only 
possible way to receive it, is to take it upon credit and with- 
out examination. 

Is there not abundant reason then to say, that arguments 
against the genuineness of Daniel, of Chronicles, or of any 
other book in the Hagiography, on the ground of its present 
arrangement, are utterly futile ; inasmuch as they have no 
solid basis ? Indeed this is one of those cases, in which we 
may say, that the negative is capable of critical demonstra- 
tion. 

After a minute investigation of this whole matter of the 
classification and order of the sacred books, one may well be 
surprised at finding such an intelligent critic as Hengstenberg, 
in his Authentie des Daniel (p. 23 seq.), admitting, as it would 
seem without any question, the antiquity of the Talmudic 
arrangement, and striving to explain the location of Daniel 
among the Hagiography, on the ground that the book was not 
written in Palestine, and was not from the hand of one who 
was a prophet by office, or who could claim the highest de- 
gree of inspiration. Certain it is from all the authorities be- 
fore Jerome and the Talmud, that Daniel was never classi- 
fied in this manner by the more ancient Jews. This is the 
shortest and best answer to all arguments against the genu- 
ineness of that book, on the ground of its location. In fact 
this matter is so plain, that I am strongly tempted to believe, 
that in the disputes between Christians and the Jews about 
the Messiah, and the time of his coming, during the first three 



§ 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 291 

and a half centuries, the Jews felt themselves to be so pressed 
by the apparent prediction in Dan. ix. respecting the Seventy 
Weeks before his coming, that they sought to give the book 
a lower place than it had occupied before, and thus to remove 
it somewhat from an association with the other prophets. It 
was too late to exclude it from the Canon. 

Havernick, in his recent Introduction to the Old Testa- 
ment, has made the same admission of the antiquity of the 
Talmudic arrangement in respect to the Kethubim. And he 
has not only done this, and in addition to it maintained that 
the Talmudists made distictions in the order of the prophets, 
which were founded on the degree of their inspiration and the 
continuance of it, but he has laboured at length (p. 54seq.) to 
show, that even the Scriptures themselves make a distinction — 
a palpable one — between joas a prophet, and nso or i~ilh a seer. 
Labour surely bestowed in vain ; and, on account of the fun- 
damental error which it involves, having a tendency only to 
make his readers distrustful in regard to statements of this 
nature when made by him. How easy to have prevented 
such a mistake as he has made, by duly consulting a Hebrew 
Concordance ! Had he done this, he must have seen that 
$ias and nso or rnh are undistinguishingly used to desig- 
nate the very same individuals ; e. g. Samuel is ifOi in 
1 Sam. 3: 20. 2 Chron. 35: 18, and tufa in 1 Sam. 9: 11, 18, 
19. 1 Chron. 9:22. 26:28. 29:29. Gad is jraa in 1 Sam. 
22: 5. 2 Sam. 24: 11, and nth in 1 Chron. 29: 29 ; Iddo is 
prophet in 2 Chron. 13: 22, and seer in 9: 29 ; Jehu is pro- 
phet in 1 Kings 16: 7, 12, and seer in 2 Chron. 19: 2. So 
Amos is called a SiMi in Amos 7: 12, and the whole body of 
the prophets collectively appear to be called seers in 2 Kings 
17: 13. 2 Chron. 33: 18. Isa. 29: 10. 30: 10. Mic. 3: 7. In 
1 Sam. 9: 9 it is expressly stated that JtsaS and ntn are 
equivalent by usage, the latter being the more ancient word, 
and the former being then but recently employed. Both de- 
signate the same class of persons, although etymologically 
considered the words bear diverse shades of meaning. X">23 
marks one as an inspired person uttering the thoughts which 



292 § 12. SAMENESS OF THE JEWISH CANON. 

his inspiration suggests; STin or in&p designate a person 
as seeing things concealed from others, whether by being fu- 
ture, or because they are difficult to find out. Pity that a 
writer of so much learning and vigour as Havernick should 
take such a false position, specially when it was so easy to 
shun it ! 

It is true, indeed, that neither Hengstenberg nor Haver- 
nick appears to lay any stress upon the Rabbinic conceit of 
different gradations of inspiration, as being matter of fact. 
They introduce this view of the Talmudists, in oi'der to ac- 
count for the arrangement of so many books among the class 
of Kethubim. Yet even this will hardly be accomplished by 
it ; for how came Lamentations to be put among the Kethu- 
bim, and Jeremiah among the Prophets ? What sort of in- 
spiration was that which was given to David, in his Messia- 
nic views as exhibited by the Psalms ? Or what, in respect 
to devotional feeling and instruction ? There is no view that 
we can take of this subject, which does not show its futility. 
And when the question is once asked : By what diagnostics 
could the Rabbies discern and decide the gradations of inspi- 
ration ? all the answer is made to this whole matter, that 
needs to be made, or which it deserves. It is like a thousand 
thousand other conceits with which the Talmudic writers 
abound, and which even the later Jewish writers virtually ac- 
knowledge, by calling them Haggadoth, i. e. tales or stories, 
meaning pleasant or entertaining stories. 

With good reason then do we take the position, that the 
son of Sirach, Philo, the New Testament, Josephus, and all 
the earlier Ghristiayi ivriters, down to the middle of the fourth 
century, testify in favour of an arrangement of the Hebrew 
Scriptures, which classes four books together that are of like 
composition and matter in some important respects, and regards 
only these as belonging to the Hagiography. All that dif- 
fers from this is later, and is the invention of those who have 
sought for or made distinctions that are only imaginary, and 
shown more of the ingenuity of romancers than of the sound 
judgment and discretion of sober critics. 



§ 13. GENERAi RESULTS. 293 



§ 13. General Results of preceding Investigations. 

There are some results, which are so plain and lie as it 
were so much on the very surface of what has been exhibited, 
that they cannot well escape the notice of the reader, even 
such a reader as may be unskilled in criticism. These are, 
that the books, which for ages past have belonged to the He- 
brew Canon, and which now belong to it, are the very same 
books^wkich belonged to it in the time of Christ and the apos- 
tles, and for several centuries before this period. There are 
some particulars in the history of them which has now been 
traced, that place this position beyond all reasonable contra- 
diction. The Son of Sirach refers to them, at least 180 
years (perhaps 280) before the Christian era, precisely in 
the same manner, and by substantially the same names or 
designations, as does Philo (fl. 40 B. C), the writers of the 
New Testament, and Josephus. The manner of the refer- 
ence implies of necessity a defined and well known collection 
of books, intelligible to every educated reader, and no more 
liable to be mistaken, than our word Scripture or Bible now 
is among us. The Chi-istian Fathers who follow, down to 
the fifth century, have made the limits of the Jewish Canon 
entirely definite by specifying, in different countries and by 
many distinguished persons, the identical books which belong 
to the Jewish Scriptures. No room is left for mistake on 
this important point. Such is the state of facts. 

In the next place, we argue that such must necessarily have 
been the case, from the circumstances of the Jews, their views 
and feelings in relation to religious matters, and the opposing 
party-divisions which existed, first among themselves, and 
then between the Jews and Christians, To begin with the 
Jews ; it is certain from the repeated testimony of Josephus, 
and indirectly of Philo, that the Sect of Pharisees and Sad- 
ducees existed long before the birth of Christ. The Saviour 
and his disciples found these sects in full vigour, and in strong 
action, at the time of their ministry. When we go further 
25* 



294 § 13. GENERAL RESULTS. 

back, we find ourselves unable to trace their history to its 
origin. Josephus first mentions them in Antiq. XIII. 5. 9, 
under the high-priest Jonathan (159 — 144 B. C.) ; but he 
mentions them (together with the Essenes) as sects already 
fully and definitely formed. Winer thinks, and with good 
reason, that the spirit of Judaism, soon after the return of 
the Jews from their Babylonish exile, gave rise to a feeling 
which led to the formation of the Pharisaic party ; and that 
this veiy naturally called forth an opposition, which embodi- 
ed itself in the Sadducaean party ; art. Pharisaer, in Bib, Lex. 
In the time of John Hyrcanus, nephew of Judas Maccabaeus, 
Josephus speaks of the Pharisees as having such influence 
with the common people, that " they would be believed even 
in case they uttered anything against the king or high-priest." 
To them was opposed the Sadducees ; and the main sub- 
ject of division between them, was not the denial of angel or 
spirit, or the Sadducaean rejection of the Pharisaic doctrine 
of predestination, (as has been often alleged), but the cardo 
rei was that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and prac- 
tice. In opposition to the Pharisees, the Sadducees rejected 
all traditions and ordinances of men, not expressly sanction- 
ed by the Scriptures. So Josephus most explicitly : " Their 
custom was, to regard nothing except the Laws [i. e. the 
written Laws=the Bible] ; for they reckon it as a virtue to 
dispute against the doctors in favour of the wisdom (oocplag) 
■which they follow ;" Antiq. XVIII. 1. 4. Again in Antiq. 
XIII. 10. G he says : " The Pharisees inculcated many rules 
upon the people, received from the fathers, which are not 
written in the Law of Moses ; and on this account the sect of 
the Sadducees reject them, alleging that those things are to be 
regarded as rules which are written [in the Scriptures]," but 
that the traditions of the fathers are not to be observed. In 
a word ; the Sadducees of old were Scripturists ; and in re- 
spect to this point they occupied the same ground in opposition 
to the Pharisees, which Protestants now occupy in relation to 
the Roman Catholic traditions. That sect has long been de- 
funct among the Jews ; but it has notoriously been succeeded 



§ 13. GENERAL RESULTS. 295 

by the so called Karaites (TN^p, Scripturists); see Triglan- 
dius, Syntagma de Sectis Judeorum, etc. The idea that has 
been broached and defended by some, that the Sadducees ad- 
mitted the authority of only the Pentateuch, is entirely with- 
out foundation. How could they have been, as they often 
were, members of the Sanhedrim, and high priests, and no 
objection of this nature have been brought against them by 
the Pharisees ? That their speculations led them to reject 
the existence of angels and unembodied spirits, is true in- 
deed ; but, as I have already said, the cardo rei, in respect to 
the dispute between them and the Pharisees, was what has 
just been stated ; see Winer, Bib. Lex. art. Sadducaer, who 
has taken considerable pains in the investigation of these mat- 
ters. 

Back then to a time which preceded the Maccabees, at all 
adventures, we must put the rise of the Pharisees and Sad- 
ducees. From the moment that the parties were fully form- 
ed, the extent of the Jewish Scriptures was of course a matter 
fully and permanently decided. It is impossible to suppose, 
that the Sadducees would concede to their antagonists the 
right or the power to introduce new books into the Canon. 
This would be giving up the very essence of the matter in 
dispute. No one but a prophet divinely commissioned, and 
so endowed as to be acknowledged by both parties, would or 
could be entrusted with the introduction of a new sacred book. 
But no such prophet, as is conceded by all, made his appear- 
ance at that time. Of course we cannot listen to the affirma- 
tions of Neologists, however confident and often repeated, 
that Daniel, Chronicles, Jonah, many of the Psalms, and 
what not, first made their appearance at the Maccabaean peri- 
od. It was impossible to procure admittance for them to the 
Canon, if such were the case. The very essence of the dis- 
pute between the two great parties among the Jews, turning 
as it did on the specific point of adherence to the Scriptures 
only, must of course have rendered it impossible for either 
party newly to introduce a sacred book, which would be ac- 
knowledged by the other. Yet we have not a whisper in all 



296 § 13. GENERAL RESULTS. 

antiquity, that tells us of any dispute in relation to the rejec- 
tion of any book now in the Jewish Canon, or of any doubt 
about its authenticity by either party. Even the Pharisees 
never attempted to add their traditions to the Scriptures, in 
the way of incorporating them together. They produced 
them at first as oral law, brought down merely by oral tradi- 
tion. They formed, at last, their Mishna, and their Talmud, 
in order to embody them and make them permanent ; but in 
all this they meddled not with the integrity of the Scriptures. 
In forbidding the young to read Canticles and the first and 
last part of Ezekiel, they did not pretend to undervalue these 
books, but merely manifested their opinion that they were 
not adapted, by reason of their peculiar style and matter, to 
the capacity, comprehension, and profit of youthful readers. 

We may in a moment realise the validity of the argument 
under consideration, by asking the question : Whether any 
one of the sects of Christians, at present, could introduce 
another book into the New Testament, which would be ac- 
knowledged by all ? Has it yet ever been possible to make 
Protestants receive Judith and Tobit, and the Apocrypha in 
general, since the beginning of the Reformation ? The Coun- 
cil of Trent did their best to effect this ; and in what has it 
resulted ? 

We have seen how matters stood before the Christian era ; 
let us now inquire into the state of them since the commence- 
ment of that era. Two parties existed among the Jews. 
Many of the Jews became Christians, and were not only op- 
posed and controverted by the others, but persecuted even to 
death. The Scriptures were in the hands of both. Which 
party could add to or diminish from them, and yet persuade 
the other to accede ? Surely neither^ When the Alexan- 
drine Christians, (whether Jewish or pontile Christians we 
cannot perhaps decide with certainty), afteN\he lapse of some 
time, introduced slowly and gradually the Apocryphal books 
into their churches, did the Jews ever receive or admit them 
as Scripture ? Not in the least. Melito, Origen, and others 
tell us specifically what the Jewish Canon was, at an early pe- 



§ 13. GENERAL RESULTS. 297 

riod ; Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, Rufinus, the Talmud, tell 
us what it continued to be at a later period. No one will even 
pretend to say that it has been changed since. Jews and 
Christians have always been too sharply opposed to admit 
of any change in the Scriptural documents, since the fifth 
century. It would be useless to attempt any proof of a mat- 
ter so obvious, certain, and acknowledged by all. Whatever 
a part or a party of Christians have done, in the way of foist- 
ing in the Apocrypha, has never produced the least influence 
upon the Jews, nor upon the limits of their Canon. The 
books which we now have as theirs, and which are appealed 
to and quoted in the New Testament, still remain as docu- 
ments which are quoted and referred to by Christians, and by 
all the Jews the world over. If there ever was a people on 
the face of the earth, whose superstitions even, to mention 
nothing better, would have put it out of all question either to 
add to, or take from, their sacred books, that people was the 
Jews. With what unbending obstinacy have they adhered, 
for more than a thousand years, even to all the conceits and 
egregious trifling of much that is in the Talmud ! Have they 
been less superstitious in regard to their Scriptures ? 

Whatever may be the difficulties existing in the minds of 
some, and even of some conscientious persons, about a part 
of the Old Testament books, they have no bearing on the 
historico-critical question before us. Our inquiry respects a 
matter of fact, not of doctrine. And this fact stands before 
us, not in the obscurity of night, nor in the doubtful glimmer- 
ings of twilight, but in the full blaze of a noon-day sun. 

The question how much authority is to be attributed to 
the Old Testament, or to any part of it, has not yet been dis- 
tinctly considered. It remains for more particular discussion ; 
and to this we shall proceed, as soon as one more inquiry has 
been made. This is : 



298 § 14. CANON OF EGYPTIAN JEWS. 



§ 14. Did the Egyptian Jews admit the same Canon as 
the Jews of Palestine ? 

In order rightly to appreciate the importance of this ques- 
tion, it will be necessary to glance at the condition and the 
number of the Jews in Egypt, at the period of about 320 
B. C, and thence downwards to the Christian era. 

To Ptolemy Lagus, one of the military officers of Alexan- 
der the Great, was assigned, after the death of that king, the 
government of Egypt. In the contests which followed, among 
the ethnarchs of Alexander's empire, Ptolemy overran and 
took possession of Judea, Samaria, Phenicia, and Coelo-syria. 
Josephus relates that Ptolemy came in person to Jerusalem, 
and offered saci'ifices in the temple there. In order to secure 
the tranquillity of the newly conquered countries, he took 
with him a great number of hostages to Egypt, and among 
these were many thousand Jews. Some of the latter were 
sent to Cyrene, (then under Ptolemy), but the body of them 
settled in the newly built city of Alexandria. 

From time to time, after this, great accessions were made 
to their numbers ; for they were treated with special favour 
by most of the Egyptian kings, in order to secure their fide- 
lity and their aid. Finally, about 153 B. C, Onias, a son 
of the high priest Onias III. who was massacred at Daphnae 
under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, fled to Egypt ; and 
not long after this, he so gained the favour of Ptolemy Phi- 
lometer, then king of that country, that he was made com- 
mander in chief of the Egyptian army, and governor of the 
Nome of Heliopolis ; while the second in command was Do- 
sitheus, another Jew. Onias, on account of the great num- 
ber of Jews in Egypt and its dependencies, conceived the 
idea of having a temple built in that country, in order to ac- 
commodate Hebrew worshippers, and save the expense and 
trouble of journeying to Palestine, in order to pay their devo- 
tions there. The king consented, and a temple was built at 
Leontopolis, in the Nome of Heliopolis, in which Onias be- 



§ 14. CANON OF EGYPTIAN JEWS. 299 

came high priest, and subordinate priests and Levites were 
gathered around him. The temple itself was built after the 
model of that at Jerusalem ; and the whole routine of worship 
in it was simply copied from that at Jerusalem. This state 
of things continued, until the temple of Leontopolis was de- 
stroyed by Vespasian, during his war with the Jews. 

Now there is not the least intimation from any quarter, that 
either any new books or new ritual of worship were ever in- 
troduced here. The whole arrangement bespeaks the con- 
trary. Even so late as the time of Philo Judaeus (40 B. C), 
the attachment to the religion of the father-land was not di- 
minished among the Jews of Egypt. They sent Philo to Je- 
rusalem, there to make offerings in the name of the people, 
i. e. of the Egyptian Jews. Philo himself was descended 
from a family of the priesthood. He was a Pharisee, and 
zealous for the religion of his fathers. Yet in all his volumi- 
nous works, he never once refers to any of the apocryphal 
books as Scripture, nor ever makes them the basis of any of 
his allegorizing ; and all this, when at the same time it is 
manifest from numerous hints, and occasionally from his dic- 
tion, that he was familiarly acquainted with the apocryphal 
writings. Of this indeed there can be no doubt, considering 
his station and his literary ardour. How is it possible, that 
neither he, nor Josephus, ever intimates a word of any dif- 
ference of views about the Jewish Scriptures between the 
Jews of Palestine and Alexandria, if any such difference re- 
ally existed ? The fact that Philo has quoted most of the 
Jewish books as authoritative and divine, is a pledge that he 
recognized the Jewish Scriptures in their usual extent. The 
fact that Josephus never intimates any departure from Jew- 
ish views on the part of Egyptian Jews, proves, beyond any 
fair contradiction, that he was not aware of any such depar- 
ture. After the minute account he gives of the Pharisees, 
the Sadducees, and the Essenes, should we not of course ex- 
pect him, when he describes the building of the temple at Le- 
ontopolis and its ritual, to take notice of any peculiarities in 
the views of his Egyptian brethren in regard to the Scrip- 
tures ? 



300 § 15. ESTIMATION OF SCRIPTURES. 

It seems probable, indeed, that most of the books which we 
now name Apocrypha, first came into being, or at least into 
circulation, in Egypt. Alexandria was, for a long period, 
the great literary workshop of the times. Such of them as 
were written before the Christian era, (which seems to have 
been the case with most), must of course have been written 
by Jews. But they were nearly all written in Greek ; and 
no Jew ever thought of uniting a Greek book with the He- 
brew ones. Hence, although some of the apocryphal books 
made their way to an association with the Septuagint version, 
yet they were never joined to the Hebrew Scriptures. Even 
the production of Jesus the Son of Sirach, who was a Jew of 
Jerusalem and wrote in Hebreiv, made no claim, at least none 
which was admitted, to scriptural authority. Much less could 
the books written originally in Greek prefer such a claim. 
Vulgar and uneducated readers, who had no discriminating 
taste or judgment, and who knew only the Greek Scriptures, 
might unwittingly unite the apocryphal books with them, be- 
cause of their religious tone. Yet it would be difficult to 
prove that this was done, before the Christian era. At all 
events, such men as Philo, although he quotes only the Greek 
Scriptm-es, never once thought of doing any such thing. 

"We may safely come to the conclusion, then, that the Ca- 
non of the Hebrew Scriptures was the same among the Jews 
both of Egypt and Palestine. Our next step is the inquiry : 

§ 15. In what estimation were the Hebrew Scriptures held by 
the Jews, at, before, and soon after the commencement of 
the Christian era f 

"We begin with the testimony of the Son of Sirach. In the 
proem to the Greek version of his book, his grandson has told 
us respecting him, that " he gave himself inl nlsiov, for the 
greater part of the time, or very much, to the study of the Law, 
the Prophets, and the other patrical Books," in order to pre- 
pare for writing his own book. At the outset the translator 
speaks of the " tzoXXwv xai pEyalav, many and important 



§ 15. SIRACHIDES. 301 

things which were imparted to the Jews by the Law, the Pro- 
phets, and the other Books of like tenor." The estimation 
put upon the Scriptures, by Sirachides and his grandson, is 
very plainly disclosed by these declarations. The Bible, for 
the first, was the highest source of all true wisdom and know- 
ledge ; in the view of the second, it was the efficient cause of 
procuring the distinguished blessings and privileges enjoyed 
by the Hebrews. 

Everywhere does Sirachides refer to the Scriptures, either 
by borrowing their phraseology, or by appealing to them, 
mostly in an indirect way, as the source of all true wisdom, 
virtue, piety, and happiness. The law is often the subject of 
reference, and is regarded as an authority in all matters. In 
the eulogy of Wisdom (ch. xxiv.), there is a manifest and 
designed imitation of Prov. viii. In the nariQav vfivog, i. e. 
Eulogy of the Fathers (xliv — 1), there is everywhere the most 
plain and manifest recognition of the authority, credibility, 
and excellence of the scriptural representations. The writer 
begins with Enoch, and follows the train of biblical histo- 
ry, down to Nehemiah. He quotes the promises to Abra- 
ham. Moses was beloved of God, and to him commandment 
was given in respect to his people. Joshua was a follower 
of Moses in the prophetic office. Most of the kings of Judah 
sinned by forsaking the Law. Jeremiah was consecrated, 
while in his mother's womb, to the prophetic office. Ezekiel 
saw visions of glory, which were shown to him by him who 
rode upon the Cherubim. All the offerings and rites of the 
Levitical ritual are excellent and deserving of veneration ; 
strong attachment to them, and particularity in the observ- 
ance of them, is worthy of high commendation. This and 
the like matter in the book of Sirachides show beyond the 
possibility of doubt, that with him the sacred books were rb 
ndvv, the all in all. Philo and Josephus have designated 
their views much oftener by the use of significant attributives 
applied to the Scriptures, (as we shall soon see) ; but they 
have shown no deeper reverence for the authority and excel- 
26 



302 § 15. ESTIMATION OF SCRIPTURE. 

lence of the Scriptures, than the Son of Sirach. " He that 
runneth, may read" this, in every part of his work. 

"We come next to Philo. He has been more explicit in 
stating his view of the matters under consideration. Nothing 
can be more certain than his belief in the divine inspiration 
and authority of the Scriptures, in the very highest sense that 
can be affixed to these words. The edition to which I refer 
in the view subjoined, is that of Mangey, 2 vol. fol. 

I. Philo 's view of the prophetic office and of inspiration. 
In Opp. I. p. 222, speaking of Moses as a prophet, he sub- 
joins : " 'EofttjveTg ydo elaiv ol 7Toocpijzai -dsov, xazaxQooixs'voi 
tolg ixsivcov ooydvoig 7Tobg drjXcoaiv (6v dv sd-rjX?](je, i. e. Pro- 
phets are the interpreters of God, he employing their organs for 
the disclosure of whatever he pleases." In his De Legibus 
Special., II. p. 343, he comes out most fully and explicitly 
with his views : " riooqirjzijg ds fxsv ydo ovdsv i'diov dnocpai,- 
vezai. to Ttaqdnav, aXX aaziv sQfxrjvsvg, vnno^dXXovzog sisqov 
Tiavd' oca Tiooqis'Qst, xai xa& ov /qovov iv&ovoi'a, ysyovcog h 
dyvola, (iETaviGrafit'vov fxtv tov XoyiGfiov xai 7zaQaxs^r>)Qi]x6rog 
iqv rfjg yjv%qg dxQonoXiv • imrtscpoizrjxozog ds xal ivoixqxo- 
zog tov -&stov nvevpazog, xal ndoav r-qg cpowijg oqydvonouav 
xQovovzog, ds xai svij^ovrzog slg svaQytj dqXaaiv cov nooofts- 
ani&t, i. e. a prophet exhibits nothing at all which is his own, 
but is an interpreter, another suggesting whatever he utters ; 
and so long as he is inspired, he remains unconscious, his 
reason departing and quitting the citadel of the soul, and the 
divine Spirit entering and inhabiting it, and giving impulse to 
all the organism of the voice, and uttering sounds for the clear 
discourse of those things which he prophesies." Here, then, 
is a representation that will satisfy even the warmest stickler 
for passivity in persons inspired. I regret to add, that down 
to the present hour there have been and are not a few, who 
have laboured to support the like extreme view of this matter. 
Even Hengstenberg tells us, that " when the Spirit of God 
comes in, the spirit of man goes out ;" the mere echo of what 
Philo said more than 1800 years ago. It is not my present busi- 
ness to examine theologically this view of inspiration. How 



§15. philo. 303 

the weight or authority of what is communicated, is aug- 
mented by the supposition that the organ of communication 
ceases to be a rational and conscious being, is what no one 
has yet shown. At all events Paul did not believe in such a 
view of this matter, when he declared, (for the purpose of en- 
forcing obedience to his injunctions among the Corinthian 
prophets, and of showing their obligation and ability to obey), 
that " the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets." 
To Philo such a suggestion, it seems, would have appeared 
little less than blasphemy. My view of it is indeed very dif- 
ferent. It appears to me to be simple Christian rationality 
and (ruth. But enough of this. 

No one will deny, then, that whatever books Philo con- 
sidered as Scripture, or as revealed, they, in his view, bore 
the stamp of the highest possible authority and credibility. 
He often repeats this sentiment In his Quis Rer. divin. Hae- 
res sit, (Opp. I. 510), he says: "A prophet utters nothing of 
his own, but all things are from a foreign source, another giv- 
ing them utterance." And again in II. p. 417 : " A prophet 
is an interpreter, uttering from within the things that are 
spoken by God." "Whoever then is called a. prophet by him, is of 
course regarded as an instrument of divine and authoritative 
communication. Whatever books were ranked by him as Scrip- 
ture, were also of course, in his view, entitled to all the au- 
thority and reverence which such a character of their authors 
could claim. It remains for us to see how he characterizes, 
in particular, both the sacred writers and their books. 

II. Philo's particular view of sacred authors, and of their 
booh. The most general designation of the authors is prophets, 
7iQ0<ftj7(a. With this word, and for the sake of variety in his 
diction, he not unfrequently exchanges other names, which, 
as he employs them, are altogether equivalent. For example, 
we find frequently in him, nQogj/jr^g uv^q, prophetic man, 
hgocpdrTT;,; hierophant, i. e. exhibitor of sacred things, deans- 
oiog avi'iQ, oracular man, Mavomg izaigog, disciple or com- 
panion of Moses, Mcovoe'cog &iaowrr t g, a follower of Moses, 
(lit. a thiasos associate), zig rav cpoizijTwv Mcoasag, one of the 



304 § 15. ESTIMATION OF SCRIPTURE. 

followers or frequenters of Moses, rov nQo^nnov ^taarotng 
%oqov, a companion of the prophetic choir ; all of which names 
are applied to various sacred writers, and which an artificial 
eloquence led Philo thus to vary, while his meaning is ever 
the same. Moses is referred to in some of the cases above, 
as the perfection of the prophetic character, the ideal of an in- 
spired person. 

The books written by such men he calls iegdg ygacpdg, sa- 
cred Scriptures, ieodg fii'fiXovg, sacred books, isocozarov yodpixa 
most holy writing, teoocpavrnd-wta, sacred disclosures, nooqin- 
iixbv Xoyor, prophetic word, 7TQ0cpi]rixu Qtjfiaza, prophetic say- 
ings, sometimes Xoyiov oracle, Xoyiov rov &eov, oracle of God, 
and sometimes iqijguov oracular response, or rb XQijafttv, what 
is uttered oracularly. Like the preceding designations of 
prophets, all these, as employed by him, are entirely synony- 
mous, and the variety belongs merely to his rhetoric. 

Any of these names bestowed on writers, or on their books, 
indicate, of course, the fullest belief on the part of Philo, that 
they were divinely inspired, and therefore of paramount au- 
thority. Our next object then will be, to inquire in what 
manner he has bestowed these appellations. 

III. Books and persons designated by Philo as inspired. 
Moses he almost everywhere names 7iQoq)7Jzrjg, prophet or 
t£Qocpdv77]g, hierophant. His inspiration is of the highest 
stamp ; his books are the prophetic word or sacred books. 
Genesis he calls ieoug yqcccpag, sacred Scriptures, (De Mundi 
Opif. I. p. 18) ; Exodus is leod fitftXog, sacred book, (De Mi- 
grat. Abrah. I. p. 438) ; Leviticus is ieoog Xoyog, sacred ivord, 
(Allegor. III. Tom. I. p. 85) ; Numbers he calls hgazazov 
jQd[Afia, most sacred writing, (Deus sit immut. I. 273) ; and 
Deuteronomy %qij6[xi6v and Uqov Xoyov, oracle and sacred 
word, (De Migrat. Abraham. I. 454, and De Somn. I. 657). 

Joshua he cites as Xoyiov rov iXiov &eov, the oracle of the 
merciful God, (De Confus. Ling. I. 430). 

I. Samuel, (which, following the designation of the Septua- 
gint, he calls I. Kings), is cited as iagbg Xoyog, (De Temulent. 
I. 379). 



§ 15. philo. 305 

Ezra is cited as containing r« iv ^aaiXiy.aig (lifiXoig tego- 
(favTTj&e'vza things sacredly revealed in the royal boohs, (De 
Confus. Ling. L 427). 

Isaiah he names zov ndXai TtQoyrjrqv, the ancient prophet, 
(De Somn. I. 681). His prophecies are 7iQO(pvTixa grjuaza, 
prophetic sayings, (De Mutat. Nom. I. 604). 

Jeremiah he calls prophet, hierophant, and fivGzrjg one ini- 
tiated in sacred mysteries ; and his work is XQV^f 1 ^ oracle, 
(De Cherub. I. 147, 148). Again he says of this prophet, 
that he was zov ngocpi]Ttxov \riaa<azt]g %oqov, og -Aazanvsva- 
&£ig iv&ovaidjv dvsqi&f/^azo, i. e. an associate of the pro- 
phetic choir, who being animated by the Spirit spake in ecstasy, 
(De Confus. Ling. I. 44). In another place he says : " The 
Father of the universe predicted by the prophetic mouth of 
Jeremiah, (De Prof. I. 575). 

In respect to the Minor Prophets, (always one book in an- 
cient times), he refers to two of them, viz. Hosea and Zecha- 
riah. A passage in Hos. 14: 8 he names xQtjO&tv naga rivi 
iwv 7TQoq}^zcov, spoken oracularly by one of the prophets, (De 
Plant. Noe, I. 350). Again he calls Hos. 14: 24 " a glowing 
oracle predicted by a prophetic mouth," (De Mutat. Nom. 1. 
350). Zechariah he calls the companion of Moses, Mavasoog 
szaigog, (De Confus. Ling. I. 414). Of course, in referring 
to these two prophecies, or to either of them, he recognizes 
the whole book of the Twelve, which was always counted as 
one book, so far back as we can trace the history of the canon. 

The Psalms are often quoted by Philo as Scripture ; and 
David, whom he regarded as the principal author of them, is 
called by him ngoqrjZTjg, prophet, (De Agric. I. 308) ; nooqirj- 
rrjg dvi'jg, prophetic man, (Quis Rer. div. Haeres, I. 515) ; 
&mni(5iog dvtjg, oracular man, (De Plant. Noe, 1.344. comp. 
De Mund. Opp. I. 362) ; Mcavatwg ftiaotozng og ov'/i zap 
rnitli]ii£vcav i\v, an associate of Moses who was not of those that 
are lightly regarded, (De Plant. Noe, p. 219 edit. Francof.) ; 
and sometimes szaigog Mmascog, the friend of Moses, (Quod 
a Deo mitt. Somnia, I. 691). 

In like manner he speaks of Solomon, whom the Jews of 
26* 



306 § 15. ESTIMATION OP SCRIPTURE. 

that day regarded as the author of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and 
Canticles. He says that he is in rov fisiov %qqov, of the di- 
vine choir, (De Ebriet. I. 362) ; and he names him nva zoov 
(poitqTMv Mcoatcog, one of the disciples of Moses, (De Cong, 
quaer. erud. Grat. I. 544). 

The book of Judges, 8: 9, he quotes in De Confus. Ling. 
L 424. Job 14: 4 is quoted in De Mutat. Nom. I. 584. Our 
first book of Kings, (Philo names it as in the Sept., the third), 
is quoted in De Gigant. I. 274, and in six other places. The 
book of Psalms, already mentioned as quoted by him, he 
quotes in all the five parts or divisions of the books, so as to 
show that it was the same in his day as in ours ; see in Eichh. 
Einl. I. p. 97, edit. III. 

Quotations are not found in him from Ruth, Esther, Chron- 
icles, Daniel, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles. But 
the two latter are doubtless acknowledged by the reference 
to Solomon as " of the divine choir." Of the others it is 
sufficient to say, that he did not find occasion to quote them. 
It is no argument against their existence and canonical rank, 
that they are not quoted by him, when he nowhere under- 
takes to give us a list of the Scriptures, but only to refer to 
such passages in them as are to his purpose. Would any 
man think of drawing the conclusion in these days, that cer- 
tain books of the Old Testament were not acknowledged by 
this theologian and that, because they have not quoted them 
in their publications ? Nothing could be more weak and 
false in reasoning than this. And equally so is it, when ap- 
plied to Philo. 

After all, in fact the books not quoted by him are almost 
none, if we reckon the universal manner of the ancients in 
distributing the books. E. g. Judges and Ruth were by them 
regarded as one book, and he quotes Judges ; Jeremiah and 
Lamentations were one book, and he quotes Jeremiah ; the 
books of Ezra and Nehemiah were one, and he quotes Ezra. 
There is left then only Chronicles, Daniel, and Esther, which 
he has not quoted. The wonder is, not that so many remain 
unquoted, but that so many have been quoted. 



§ 15. philo. 307 

Moreover as the grandson of Sirachides had, long before 
Philo's time, repeatedly adverted to the triplex division of 
the Jewish Scriptures, the Law, the Prophets, and the Other 
Books ; and as Philo acknowledges the same division, in 
speaking of the studies of the Essenes (Opp. II. 475) ; we 
may conclude that he has virtually referred to every part of 
Scripture, inasmuch as this triplex division must have con- 
sisted of books whose number and order were well defined 
and well known at that time. Philo was a Pharisee, and of 
priestly origin. He was zealous, also, in matters pertaining 
to the Jewish religion. His embassy to Palestine shows 
this ; and his works everywhere bear ample testimony to it. 
In fact, it seems impossible rationally to doubt, that the canon 
of Philo was the same as that of Josephus and the New Tes- 
tament writers, considering how near he lived to the times in 
which they lived, and in what manner he has described the 
contents of the Scriptures which he regarded as divine. 

That Philo was, as has already been said, acquainted with 
the apocryphal books, there can be no doubt. Yet he nev- 
er QUOTES THEM, NOT EVEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALLE- 
GORIZING. No imaginable reason can be given for this, ex- 
cepting that, like Josephus, he made a distinction wide and 
broad between inspired and other books. This account of 
Philo's practice in regard to the apocryphal books may be 
relied on, for Hornemann (Observatt. ad illustr. Doctrinae 
de Canone Vet. Test, ex Philone) assures us of this ; and he 
read through the whole works of Philo, as he states, in order 
to ascertain this very point. His competency and his can- 
dour as a witness will not be called in question. Eichhorn 
gives him full credit ; Einl. I. § 26. In fact, Philo shows 
his contempt of the apocryphal books, (for which some in his 
day doubtless began to entertain a high regard, so as to treat 
them as a kind of Scripture), by treating them with more 
neglect than he has even the heathen productions ; for he 
often quotes Plato, Philolaus, Solon, Hippocrates, Heraclites, 
and others, while he never does this honour to the Apocry- 
pha. 



308 § 15. ESTIMATION OF SCRIPTURE. 

Such then was the state of this matter respecting the Ca- 
non in Egypt, the very hot-bed of apocryphal Scriptures, at 
a period antecedent to the Christian era. The most distin- 
guished philosopher and writer of the Jewish nation, at that 
time, takes no cognizance of apocryphal scriptures, when, if 
he regarded them as other Alexandrians afterwards did, even 
Christian writers, he must have found very numerous occa- 
sions for quoting them, or referring to them. But this is an 
honour which be utterly withholds. 

Next, as to the Opinion of Josephus. We have already 
examined the testimony of Josephus, as to the number and 
nature of the sacred books (pp. 223 — 233 above), and but 
little more seems necessary to be here said, under the present 
category. My particular object now is, to render more pro- 
minent the distinction which he makes between the books of 
Scripture and other works. 

The famous passage in Cont. Apion. I. § 8, (see p. 223 
above), presents this distinction to us in a very clear and 
commanding light. After enumerating the various portions 
of Scripture and reckoning the number of the sacred books, 
he says : " From Artaxerxes until the present time, every 
occurrence is recorded ; but these [narrations] are not re- 
garded as worthy of the credit due to those which preceded 
them, because there was no certain succession of prophets. 
By our conduct we show what credit we give to the proper 
Scriptures ; for although so long a period of time has passed 
away, no one has ventured to add anything to them, or to 
take anything from them. It is implanted in every Jew, 
from his birth, to regard them [the Scriptures] as the statutes 
of God, to abide by them, and (if necessary) gladly to die for 
them." See App. No. III. A broader and more palpable 
distinction no Protestant pen could now sketch. 

Elsewhere he testifies the same feelings and views. He 
calls the Scriptures iSQag jji'p.ovg, sacred books ; rag rwv is- 
qgjv ygatyeov fi^lovg, the books of the sacred Scriptures ; iega 
yQui-ifiaza, sacred writings ; ru Iv ro) i>-po) dvaxst)ieva yQap- 
fiaxa, the writings laid up in the temple ; and also piplovg 



§ 15. JOSEPHTTS. 309 

TZQoyTjTEiag. Besides these appellations, he names the Scrip- 
tures dgxaia ftifiXia, ancient books; fiifiXoi 'Efigaiav and 
fiiftXot 'EpQcuxai, Hebrew booh. 

If now there be any suspicion, (arising from the fact that the 
books of Daniel and Esther are not quoted by Philo), that 
those books did not belong to the Jewish Canon at that peri- 
od, it is entirely dissipated by the course which Josephus pur- 
sues. Of no books in the Old Testament has he given more 
copious extracts, in proportion to their length, than he has 
from these. In all respects he credits the accounts which 
they give. And as he unquestionably assigns these writings 
to a period antecedent to the close of Artaxerxes' reign, so 
no doubt can remain that they were a part of what he recog- 
nizes as Scripture. The same is true of the book of Jonah, 
to which so many exceptions have recently been taken. In 
Antiq. IX. 10. 2, he gives an account of Jonah at length, and 
says that " he tells the story of this prophet just as he finds 
it written if 'E^Qa't'y.ai*; ^ifiXoig, in the Hebrew books; and 
at the close he repeats the declaration, that " he has gone 
through the narration as he found it in writing." 

The manner in which Josephus expresses himself in regard 
to books before and after the close of Artaxerxes' reign, 
shows that all the Hebrew books which were within the cir- 
cle of his acquaintance, and were written before the death of 
Artaxerxes, were included within his Canon. It is indeed 
doubtful, whether any of the more ancient Hebrew writings, 
the sacred books excepted, were really extant in the time of 
Josephus. But be this as it may, it seems evident that none 
of the more ancient Hebrew books, the Scriptures excepted, 
were known to him. 

The Pentateuch he often speaks of in the highest terms, 
and bestows upon it appellations like those employed by Phi- 
lo ; e. g. he calls it isQae fttfiXovg, Antiq. I. end of Pref. III. 
5. 2. IV. 8. 48. IX. 2. 2. X. 4. 2. Another appellation is 
at TcJr isQoiv "/Qotcpaiv fiiftXoi, cont. Ap. H. 4. Comp. with 
these the various declarations of a similar tenor respecting the 



310 § 15. ESTIMATION OF SCRIPTURE. 

sacred nature of the Pentateuch, in Antiq. I. p. 4. XX. 5. 

4. III. 6. 5. IV. 8. 44. X. 4. 2. XVI. 6. 2. 

Of Isaiah Josephus says : " Cyrus read the book of the 
prophecy of Isaiah, which he composed 210 years before;" 
Antiq. XL 1. 2. Elsewhere he calls Isaiah 7T()oq)tjrt]g, a pro- 
phet; X. 2. 2. Speaking of Hezekiah he says, that "he 
learned accurately of the prophet [Isaiah] the things that 
were to come ; XL 13. 3. 

He calls Jereniiah "a prophet, who predicted terrible 
events which were to take place in respect to the city;" X. 

5. 1. 

Of Ezekiel he says : " Not only did he [Jeremiah] foretell 
these things to the multitude, but also the prophet Ezekiel ;" 
X. 5. 1. 

The book of Daniel he classes among the isqu yodfifiaTct, 
i. e. the sacred writings ; X. 10. 4. He speaks of his tzqo- 
qitjzeiav, prophecy, as being " uttered 408 years before ;" XII. 
7. 6. In X. 11. 7 he says : " All these things he [Daniel] 
left in writing, God exhibiting them to him ; so that those 
who read, observant of the events, must needs look on Daniel 
with wonder, on account of the honour clone to him by God." 
Besides, Josephus has made copious extracts from all the his- 
torical parts of Daniel, with some comments of his own. He 
makes this prophet a leading character among the men of the 
prophetic order ; see Antiq. X. 10 and 11. 

The twelve Minor Prophets Josephus regards as one book, 
and places them by the side of Isaiah. In Antiq. X. 2. 2 he 
says : " Not only this prophet [Isaiah], but the other Twelve 
as to number did the same thing. Everything, whether good 
or evil, that has taken place among us, has happened accord- 
ing to their prediction, 7Tooq)?]7eiai>." 

Of Jonah we have already spoken above. He places his 
book among the fiffilovg 'Epoa'ixdg, the Hebrew books, IX. 10. 
1. Nahum is called TTooyrjztjg, a prophet, and the fulfilment 
of his predictions is lauded ; IX. 11. 3. Haggai and Zecha- 
riah are called two prophets, dvo nqo<^i]tai ; XL 4. 5. 



§ 15. JOSEPHUS. 311 

Of Joshua, he says, that it is " among the books laid up in 
the temple ;" V. 1. 17. 

The history of Elijah contained in the book of Kings, he 
couples with the history of Enoch ; and says that these histo- 
ries " are written in the sacred books ;" IX. 2. 2. 

The Psalms he calls vfxvovg sig zov &eov ; Cont. Ap. I. 8. 
He speaks of them as " the songs of David," because David 
was the principal author ; VII. 12. 8. 

In Antiq. X. 5. 1, he speaks of Jeremiah as the author of 
the Lamentations. And as to all the historical books, Josh- 
ua, Judges, I. II. Samuel, I. II. Kings, I. II. Chronicles, 
Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, he everywhere extracts from 
them at great length in his Antiquities, following them step 
by step in their narrations, and only here and there inter- 
mingling something of his own, occasionally, but rarely, a 
wonderful story, and sometimes glosses of the Hebrew nar- 
rations. He appeals to them as of the highest and most un- 
doubted authority. 

Josephus' historical office did not lead him to quote all of 
the ancient Hagiography. He has not made excerpts from 
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, or Canticles. But he speaks of Solo- 
mon as having composed fiifilta cpdcop xal fislav, books of 
songs and chants, and as having " written 3000 books of par- 
ables and similitudes." No doubt can remain, that he re- 
garded him as the author of several of the sacred books. 

The book of Job, being foreign to the objects of his history, 
is not at all mentioned by him. But there can be no doubt, 
that this book was included in his Canon. Ezekiel makes 
recognition of this book, 14: 20. Philo quotes from the book 
of Job ; De Mutat. Norn. I. p. 584. It is necessary to include 
it, in order to make out the thirteen books which Josephus 
includes under the second class, viz. the Prophets. It is re- 
cognized in the New Testament; James 5: 11. It is reason 
enough that Josephus does not speak of the book, that the 
history of Job is that of a foreigner, probably an Arabian, 
who, if a Jew by descent, (as seems not improbable), has not 
once in all his work adverted to Jews or Judaism. The si- 



312 § 16. STJMMAKY OF TESTIMONY. 

lence of Josephus, in such a case, makes nothing against the 
book. The positive testimony of Ezekiel, Philo, and the 
New Testament, makes the point altogether clear, that the 
book was written before Artaxerxes' time, and was therefore 
regarded as one of the sacred books by Josephus, according 
to the rule which he lays down in Cont. Apion. I. 8. 



§ 16. Summary of the testimony of Sirachides, Philo, and 
Josephus. 

It needs but a brief space to exhibit this. The book of 
Sirach presents to our view a then (at least 180 B. C.) well 
known and definite triplex division of the Jewish Scriptures, 
in which all the books deemed sacred were included. Philo 
has presented us with the like divisions of the same books, in 
his notice of books which were studied by the Essenes. Jo- 
sephus has also presented us with Scriptures which exhibit 
the same division, viz. the Law, the Prophets, and the other 
Books. 

Sirachides has furnished us with no adequate means of as- 
certaining what, or how many, the sacred books of each divi- 
sion were. Philo has not told us of the number ; but he has 
referred to the books themselves as being parts of Scripture, 
and in such a way, that, if we reckon in the ancient manner 
of combining, in several cases, two or more books and nam- 
ing them as one, we make out in him a distinct recognition 
of all the books excepting Esther, Daniel, and Chronicles. 
The want of a reference in him to these books, however, 
proves nothing against their canonical credit. The only case 
in which it could do this would be, where he should under- 
take to make out a list which in his view would be complete, 
and still omit the books in question. But this he has no 
where undertaken. 

Josephus has told us the number of books in the whole col- 
lection, viz. twenty-two. Of these, five belong, according to 
his statement, to the Law ; four to the Hagiography ; and 
the rest (of course thirteen) to the Prophets. His description 



§ 17. NEW TESTAMENT TESTIMONY. 313 

of the Hagiography of necessity limits it to Psalms, Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, with which agree all the most 
ancient lists of books among the Christian fathers, down to 
Jerome. The same Josephus has revealed to us, in another 
way, what books he regarded as sacred. The Pentateuch, 
and all the historical books he quotes, and makes excerpts 
from them at large. The only books which he does not quote, 
are Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and Job. But what 
he says of Solomon as an author, in Antiq. VIII. 2. 5, seems 
plainly to show, that he regarded him as the author of the 
first three of these books ; for so he has been generally re- 
garded by the Jews in all ages since the beginning of the 
Christian era. Job then is the only book left ; but this is 
vouched for by Ezekiel, by Philo, and by the New Testament. 
Our Old Test, Canon, then, is complete, if we rest the ques- 
tion respecting it upon Jewish testimony. The witnesses be- 
fore us can neither be impeached for incompetence, partiality, 
or a proneness to state what is false. What reason is there, 
that they should not be believed? Their testimony is disin- 
terested. They have no party ends to accomplish by it, in 
this case. They were all Jews ; and none could so well un- 
derstand the matter in question as Jews. Moreover they 
were all priests, or the descendents of priestly families. At 
most, only Sirachides can be excepted from this ; and I doubt 
seriously whether we should be justified in excepting him. 
Intelligent priests, one would naturally suppose, must know 
what books were deemed sacred. 



§ 17. Nature and importance of the testimony of the New Tes- 
tament, in respect to the Old Testament. 

We come now to the consummation of our work — to the 
great point toward which all else that has been examined 
converges. Of a considerable number of books in the Old 
Testament, we do not even know who the author was. Re- 
specting others no explanatory declaration is made by each 
particular book itself, or by other sacred writers, and we find 
27 



314 § 17. NATURE AND IMPORTANCE 

no special assertion that their origin is divine. Who tells us 
expressly, that Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chron- 
icles, are of divine authority ? Who has told us the secret 
of the authorship ? In what light have any of the Old 
Testament writers placed Esther, Ecclesiastes, or Canti- 
cles ? Or what do these books say respecting themselves ? 
It seems, indeed, at first view, as if the authorship of Canti- 
cles and Ecclesiastes was assigned to Solomon ; yet a nicer 
critical examination shows, that this conclusion is probably not 
well grounded. The books have respect to Mm — he is the 
leading personage in them — but this seems to be all that we 
can necessarily make out from the inscriptions and the tenor 
of the books themselves. And besides all this, the three 
books last mentioned seem to present not a few serious diffi- 
culties, from various sources, to the mind of even a grave and 
impartial inquirer. What then has given sanction to them ? 
What obliges us to receive and admit them as divine ? Not 
one new doctrine in morals or theology is added to the gene- 
ral stock by them. If they were dropped from the Scriptures, 
our systems of divinity and morals would remain the same as 
they are now. Why then perplex our minds with these 
books, which present problems and paradoxes, some of which 
have never yet been satisfactorily solved ? Why not leave 
them to the Jews, to be put with the Mishna and the Gemara, 
and to augment the Rabbinical store-house of wonders ? Even 
the New Testament writers, (as we shall see), have not once 
adverted to them ; and if they did not pay any more regard 
to them, why should we consider and treat them as sacred ? 
In this manner many minds have thought and argued ; and 
even some which are honest and upright, and to all appeai-- 
ance earnestly desirous of knowing the truth. For the scru- 
ples of such men I must always have respect. Even if I 
cannot regard their scruples as indicative of much knowledge 
concerning the matter that excites them, still, a conscientious 
pursuit of truth, and a readiness to receive it whenever good 
sound reasons for believing it are proffered, is a disposition of 
mind always entitled to respect, and has a claim to be treat- 
ed with much Christian courtesy. There is a sentiment of 



OF NEW TESTAMENT TESTIMONY. 315 

Paul, which I would were oftener remembered and respect- 
ed; this is, that we ought " to receive him that is weak in the 
faith, but not to doubtful disputations." I can easily suppose 
a sincere and earnest Christian, whose mind has never been 
duly enlightened in regard to the Canon of Scripture, to 
be in a doubting state with respect to some of the anonymous 
Old Testament books, while he heartily admits that the rest 
belong to a divine revelation. So it was with Luther in re- 
gard to some books of the New Testament. His dispute 
with the Romanists about justification by faith alone, led him 
to regard the Epistle of James as spurious, yea as even an 
epistola straminea, i. e. a strawy epistle. The Apocalypse 
he could not receive, because he thought there was "no 
Christ in it." So he threw these books into an a-pochry-phal 
appendix. Yet, mistaken as he was, and poorly as he rea- 
soned in this case, he was still a most hearty believer in the 
divine word of God. The Scriptures were to him the su- 
preme, the all sufficient, the only rule of faith and practice. 

So, with minds scantily informed in respect to the true ba- 
sis of credibility in the Old Testament Canon, I can easily 
suppose other good men may act, in regard to some of the 
books in our Old Testament Canon ; some which are never 
expressly quoted in the New Testament as Scripture, and 
which therefore may possibly be regarded, by one class of in- 
quirers, as having never been duly authenticated. I know of 
some persons in this attitude of mind, for whom I cherish a 
high regard, and whose piety I should not think of calling 
in question. To them I would hope to be useful in the pres- 
ent investigation. I cannot agree with them in their views 
respecting the Old Testament ; but I can look on them with 
fraternal feelings, and say in the most brotherly manner to 
them : Permit me, in this little work, dXy&eveiv iv dydnr}. 

Very different is the position of those who abjure the Old 
Testament en masse ; who even cast it away with contumely, 
and will listen neither to Moses nor the Prophets. I must re- 
gard this as substantial unbelief. I apprehend it may be shown, 
that what they do is virtually to set aside the authority and 



316 § 17. NATURE AND IMPORTANCE 

express declarations of the Saviour and of his apostles. There 
are even some, who would not consider this as infidelity. 
But while I am not fond of applying harsh and ungrateful 
epithets to any man or body of men whatever, I know not 
how to call the denying, or the designed evading, of the au- 
thority or the decision of Christ and of his apostles respecting 
the books of the Old Testament, anything less than unbelief. 
It is not for me to examine and characterize the motives, 
which lead to such an unbelief. In my opinion they belong 
to the cognizance of the Supreme, the Searcher of all hearts. 
Nor am I desirous of finding or believing grounds of making 
criminal charges against any one. This whole province I 
would leave, and most gladly do leave, to the prerogative of 
the supreme Judge. So much of the guilt of unbelief, where 
unbelief in reality exists, or where I may think it to exist, de- 
pends on the tone and temper and motives of the mind and 
heart, and on the light and means of information respectively 
possessed and enjoyed by different individuals, that I do not see 
how a human tribunal can take any adequate cognizance of 
such a matter, even if it possessed a right of cognizance. For 
one, I do not claim the right ; nor do I concede it to others. 

But when all this is said, and even conceded, there still 
remains a most formidable evil, fairly attached to and charge- 
able upon unbelief. If the Saviour and his apostles, for ex- 
ample, regarded and have treated the books of the Old Tes- 
tament as of divine authority and obligation, then it is an af- 
fair of the gravest nature to decide against them. Those 
who do not profess to be Christians, and who regard neither 
the Old Testament nor the New as of divine authority, act 
consistently, to say the least, in rejecting the Old Testament 
as a revelation from God. For unbelief they too are account- 
able. If they are in the right as to their views and opinions, 
of course they will escape both guilt and punishment. But 
if they are verily in the wrong, and voluntarily shut their 
eyes against the true light which heaven has kindled up to il- 
luminate our darkened path, he who has said that unbelief 
is in his estimation a crime of the darkest hue in the cata- 



OP NEW TESTAMENT TESTIMONY. 317 

logue of our sins, cannot be expected to omit a due cogni- 
zance of it, in Ms own proper time. 

Having presented this matter in such a light, it becomes 
me now to make the inquiry, Whether the writers of the 
New Testament do ackowledge and inculcate the authority 
and obligation of the Old Testament Scriptures ? In other 
words ; Whether Christ and the apostles did appeal to the 
Scriptures as of divine authority and obligation ; and wheth- 
er those Scriptures consisted of the same books which are now 
exhibited in our Old Testament Canon ? The way will then 
be prepared for coming to our final conclusion. 

All early testimony, Jewish and Christian, exhibited inde- 
pendently of the New Testament, is accordant in regard to 
the nature and number of the Jewish sacred books. No one 
acquainted in any tolerable measure with the subject, will 
think of denying, that both Jews and Christians, at and after 
the earliest part of the Christian era, fully believed in the di- 
vine authority and obligation of those books which belonged 
to the Jewish Canon. None will deny, that before this pe- 
riod the same belief pervaded the Jewish nation. We have 
only to ask then, at present, whether the highest court of ap- 
peal sanctions this decision ; in other words, whether Christ 
and the apostles, the authors of our religion, have sanctioned 
the Jewish vieivs of the Hebrew Scriptures f 

In canvassing the testimony of Jewish and Christian wit- 
nesses, we have found occasion to look at the subject in a 
twofold light ; first, as having respect to the Scriptures as a 
whole or one composite body of writings ; and secondly, as 
having respect to individual and particular works which go 
to constitute the mass. The same method I shall still pursue, 
in the present investigation. 

I ask the reader for no special deference, on the present 
occasion, to the lists of books contained in the creeds and con- 
fessions of Christian churches or Jewish synagogues, in later 
ages. These fists may indeed be correct. In the main I 
believe that they are. But we do not here defer to them as 
an authority. We make inquiry after the substantial grounds 
27* 



318 § 17. NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF N. T. TESTIMONY. 

or reasons by which these lists of sacred books are supported, 
and their claims to confidence vindicated. 

Our main object, moreover, is to inquire after a matter of 
fact. That matter is : What did Jesus and his apostles say 
respecting the Old Testament ? What constituted the Old 
Testament of their day, and in what manner have they ap- 
pealed to it ? 

It is needless to say, that the usual process of ascertaining 
facts in ancient times, must be resorted to on this occasion. 
We take nothing for granted, but what all reasonable men 
feel obliged to concede. We take for granted, after the pre- 
ceding investigations, that there were Jewish Scriptures at the 
period in question ; that they were united together in a col- 
lection of books well known and defined ; that the Jews, one 
and all, (skeptics or heathenish persons excepted), regarded 
these books as of divine authority in all matters of faith and 
practice, spoke of them as such, appealed to them as such, 
and remained, and have continued down to the present hour 
(with the exceptions just noted) to remain, steadfast in the 
belief that such is the character of the books in question. So 
much will not be denied. 

Did Christ then, and his apostles, agree with the Jewish 
nation in regard to the matter before us ? If not, have they 
ever taught us the contrary ? Did they establish a new He- 
brew canon ? Or did they select one part of the Jewish ca- 
non, and reject the rest ? Is there any conclusion to be drawn 
from their teaching and example, as to the duty of Christians 
in this matter ? 

If now we wish to pursue our inquiries, with regard to 
these points in a satisfactory way, we must do no violence to 
the laws of exegesis. We must search after evidence, in the 
same candid and dispassionate manner which we would ap- 
prove of in the investigation of any and all matters of fact in 
ancient times. We are neither to force our own views upon 
the N. Test, writers, nor do any violence to their representa- 
tions in order to make them speak in our behalf, or in order 
that they should not testify against us. There is need of this 



§ 18. DIVERSE APPEALS OF N. TEST. TO THE OLD. 319 

caution. The principles by which it is justified, have so often 
been forgotten or violated, that there is great need of our 
keeping a watchful eye upon the whole process of investiga- 
tion. And now to the work. 



§ 18. Appeals of a general nature, which are made to the Old 
Testament in the New. 

I name all those general, which refer to the body of Scrip- 
ture, or to the Scripture as a whole considered in its collective 
capacity. A reference of such a nature may be made in a 
variety of ways, as the sequel will show. I have only to re- 
mark here, that throughout the appeals to testimony, the two- 
fold object of the authority of the Scriptures and of the books 
of which it consists, go hand in hand, and need not, and 
should not, be separated from each other. 

(1) Let us examine the Scriptures, as arranged by the 
Jews under the usual triplex division. The Saviour says 
(Luke 24: 44) to his doubting disciples : " All things must be 
fulfilled concerning me, which are written in the Law of Mo- 
ses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms." Now here is a dis- 
tinct recognition of the threefold division of the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures, which is so expressly recognized in Sirach, by Philo, 
and by Josephus. It is impossible to entertain any reasona- 
ble doubt of this, considering the time and circumstances in 
which the words were uttered. And as we have already as- 
certained what books were included in this division, we of 
course must regard this as an appeal to the Jewish Canon, 
such as it now is. On any other ground than a definite and 
well known collection of sacred books, the disciples could not 
have understood their Master, nor the Master have spoken 
with simplicity and in good faith. 

There is one other thing directly and positively declared 
here, which most of the Geologists call in question, and in 
which Mr. Norton has expressed his unbelief, (see p. 11 
above). This is, that each of these divisions or parts of the 
Scripture is affirmed to contain predictions respecting the Mes- 



320 § 18. DIVERSE APPEALS OF N. TEST. TO THE OLD. 

siah. Those who call in question the existence of prophecy, 
in the sense of prediction, and those who limit it to some few 
passages in one, or at most in two, of the Jewish divisions of 
Scripture, are placed by this passage in direct opposition 
to the Saviour. To suppose him to have said this merely in 
the way of accommodation to Jewish prejudices about the 
meaning of the Old Testament, is neither more nor less than 
to suppose him guilty of fraud. If we should call it pious fraud, 
this would not better the case, in the view of any ingenuous 
and truth-loving mind. Or, as the only alternative, they must 
suppose the Saviour, like the Jews in general, to have either 
trifled with the meaning of the Scriptures, or to have been 
really ignorant of their true import. The responsibility of ei- 
ther or any of these assertions or suppositions, is what I would 
not desire to incur ; and above all at the time when he, who is 
thus virtually accused of fraud or of ignorance, shall sit as my 
Judge, in a trial whose results are to last for eternity. 

There is indeed one other way of escape ; which is, by de- 
nying that Luke has correctly reported the words of Christ. 

But as the New Testament is full of the same kind of words, 
from beginning to end, either the credibility of it throughout, 
in regard to this subject, must be rejected ; or else it must 
come simply to this, that we are to believe only such parts 
and so much of it, as we may a priori judge to be probable 
and credible. This appears to be the exact position of Mr. 
Norton and many others. But I regard the entire rejection 
of it as more creditable to the understanding, and even to the 
heart, than this position ; for it virtually abjures faith in the 
testimony of past ages to such an extent, as must render all 
the past but a dark and troubled sea of elements eternally 
fluctuating, on which no one can ever launch with any good 
ground of hope that he may reach a safe and peaceful har- 
bour. The unbelief that consistently sets aside the whole, 
shows a more manly and energetic attitude of mind ; and in 
my opinion, it is much more likely to be convinced at last of 
error, than he is who thinks that he is already a believer and 
is safe, while he virtually rejects from the Gospel all which 



§ 18. DIVERSE APPEAXS OF N. TEST. TO THE OLD. 321 

makes it a Gospel, in distinction from the teachings of Socra- 
tes, of Plato, of Plutarch, of Cicero, and of Seneca. 

I add only one remark, which is but a repetition of what 
has already been said. The names here given to the various 
divisions of the sacred books, (and which have already been 
explained), must, from their very nature, indicate a definite 
and w ell known collection of books ranked under each class ; 
for otherwise they could have no real significance to the dis- 
ciples. When the civilian says, that the Pandects and No- 
vellae of Justinian have decided a certain point so, or so, does 
any other civilian, or any body else who knows anything 
of the works in question, entertain any doubt as to what and 
how many books or treatises are meant ? When I speak of 
the works of Virgil at one time, and at another speak of the 
Bucolics, the Georgics, and the Eneid, am I not well and defi- 
nitely understood by classical readers in both cases ? The 
decision, however, of questions so easy and obvious as these, 
does not call for any enlargement on this topic. 

(2) Another mode of general reference to the Scriptures 
as a body, or as- a collection of books fixed and definite, is by 
giving to the whole in union a general name, which usage 
has appropriated to them in order to distinguish them ; which 
name of course comprises within its import all the books that 
are thus united. 

Such in particular is the word ■/} YQacprj, or its plural al yga- 
cpai, corresponding exactly to our word Scripture and Scrip- 
tures, i. e. the xoriting, the writings. Every one sees what 
part the article plays here. It specificates, and distinguishes 
the meaning of the word to which it applies from its common 
or generic signification, viz. a writing, i. e. any writing. 
The writing is one which stands distinguished from other 
writings. The same also may be said of al yoayai (plur.) 
the Scriptures, i. e. the writings which are distinguished from 
all others. In the same manner the Moslem calls his Koran 

the Scripture ( **_>Lx^=J! ) ; indeed the word Koran itself 

has virtually the same meaning, viz. the reading, or that which 



322 § 18. DIVERSE APPEALS OF N. TEST. TO THE OLD. 

is to be read. As to the singular yoayri, or the plural you- 
<pai, there is no appreciable difference in the meaning. The 
singular is employed merely with reference to the whole col- 
lection in its unity ; the plural, in reference to the same, but 
as being made up of many parts. In like manner the Latins 
might and did say of a letter, for example, that it was epistola 
or literae. Of course, in my references to the New Testa- 
ment passages, I shall pay no regard to the number, whether 
singular or plural, of the noun which designates the Scrip- 
tures. In English we have to all intents and purposes the 
same idiom ; for we say the Scripture, and the Scriptures, 
without any other distinction of meaning than the one already 
pointed out. Let us follow the New Testament in order. 

Matt. 22: 29, Jesus says to the Sadducees : " Ye do err, 
not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." In 
other words, a knowledge of the Scriptures would save you 
from error, viz. in regard to the things of a future state. The 
same in Mark 12: 24. 

Matt. 26: 54, Jesus had just said, that he could pray to his 
Father, and obtain more than twelve legions of angels to de- 
liver him from the sufferings which were at hand ; he then 
adds : " But how then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that 
this must so be ?" i. e. that he must so suffer. Of course this 
is a declaration, that what is predicted in the Old Testament 
respecting his sufferings and death, must of necessity have a 
fulfilment. 

Matt. 26: 56, the writer is speaking of the apprehension of 
Jesus by the enraged multitude, and the violence done to 
him ; he then adds : " Now all this took place, that the Scrip- 
tures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Prophets, in the 
language of the Jews, were, as we have seen, all the writers 
of the Old Testament, i. e. they supposed them all to be inspir- 
ed, which is the true original idea of a prophet. Here, by 
the prophets is meant, those writers in the Bible who had 
predicted the sufferings of Christ. The same in Mark 14: 49. 

Mark 12: 10, " Have ye not read this Scripture ? the 
stone which the builders rejected, etc.," where Jesus quotes 



§ 18. DIVERSE APPEALS OP N. TEST. TO THE OLD. [323 

from the body of Scripture a particular passage, (which he 
names Scripture, just as we now name such a quotation). 
The object is to show, that the Scriptures had predicted what 
must be fulfilled. 

Mark 15: 28, « The Scripture was fulfilled which says : 
He shall be numbered with the transgressors." If the fulfil- 
ment here is not predicated of a direct prediction, but the 
happening of an event of the like nature with one recorded 
in Scripture, still the reference to the authority of Scripture 
stands substantially on the same ground as if the prediction 
were more direct. 

Luke 4: 21, Jesus, in the synagogue at Nazareth, had read 
a passage from Isa. 61: 1 seq., which he applies (as a predic- 
tion) to himself, and then adds : " To-day, in your hearing, 
is this Scripture fulfilled." In other words, the predictions 
in the Old Testament have respect to him, and he it is who 
fulfils them. Of course, they are acknowledged as divine. 

Luke 24: 27, Jesus is addressing his wondering and in- 
credulous disciples, after his resurrection : " Beginning from 
Moses and from all the Prophets, he explained to them the 
things concerning himself in all the Scriptures." Here are 
two recognisances of Scripture which are worthy of atten- 
tion ; (1) Moses and all the Prophets. (2) There are things 
respecting Christ in all the Scriptures. 

Luke 24: 45, " Then opened he their minds to understand 
the Scriptures." The preceding verse speaks of the Law, the 
Prophets, and the Psalms. These then constitute the Scrip- 
tures, which appellation of course means in such a case the 
whole of them ; for nothing short of this is designated by rag 
yoacpdg here. 

John 2: 22, the disciples are said, after his resurrection, to 
have remembered the words of Jesus, (destroy this tem- 
ple, and in three days I will raise it up), and then "they be- 
lieved the Scripture ;" viz. the Scripture which predicts his 
death and resurrection. 

John 5: 39, Jesus bids the Jews to " Search the Scrip- 
tures, because in them they think they have eternal life, and 



324 § 18. DIVERSE APPEALS OF N. TEST. TO THE OLD. 

these very Scriptures are those which testify of him." In 
other words, the Scriptures, i. e. the Old Testament, is the 
authority, which is to decide between him and the Jews in 
respect to his claims. 

John 10: 35, Jesus says to the Jews : " If it [the Law, 
which however is here used to designate the Scriptures in 
general] called them gods to whom the word of God came, 
and the Scripture cannot be broken, etc." Why cannot the 
Scripture be broken ? Plainly because it is the word of God. 
Is not this then of paramount and divine authority ? And 
here Scripture stands for the whole Hebrew Bible, because 
the proposition plainly amounts to this, viz. that no part or 
portion of the Scripture can be broken. 

John 13: 18, " But [this takes place] that the Scrip- 
ture might be fulfilled : He who eateth bread with me, etc." 
In other words ; whatever is directly or indirectly foretold or 
prefigured in the Scripture, must needs be fulfilled. 

John 17: 12, None of the true disciples are to perish, but 
the son of perdition must perish, " that the Scripture might 
be fulfilled." That is, all the predictions of the Old Testa- 
ment must have a completion. 

John 19: 24, " That the Scripture might be fulfilled which 
saith : They divided my garments among themselves," etc. 
To the same purpose as the preceding quotation. 

John 19: 36, The soldiers broke not the limbs of Jesus, 
"that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith: Not a 
bone of him shall be broken." The Scripture here is the in- 
junction respecting the paschal lamb, the prototype of Jesus, 
Ex. 12: 46. But the reference to its authority is not the less, 
because the fulfilment appertains to a typical prediction. 
Nay, the case is even stronger than that of a direct prediction. 
It stands thus: Not only direct predictions must be fulfilled, 
but even indirect or typical ones. In other words : Nothing 
of the Old Testament Scriptures can fail. 

John 19: 37, " Again another Scripture saith : They shall 
look on him whom they have pierced." The piercing of Je- 
sus' side by one of the soldiers, is the occasion of this quota- 



§ 18. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 325 

tion. It is regarded as being a prediction of the Scripture, 
and therefore it must needs be fulfilled. 

John 20: 9, " As yet they [the disciples] knew not the 
Scripture, that he must rise from the dead." Whatever the 
Scripture has determined must of course take place, is the 
tenor of the sentiment. 

Acts 1: 16, Peter says, in his address to the apostles: 
" Brethren, the Scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the 
Holy Ghost foretold by the mouth of David." This involves 
the necessity that the predictions should be accomplished, and. 
the express idea of the inspiration of the writer of it by the 
Holy Spirit. 

Acts 8: 35, Philip, beginning " with this Scripture [Isa. 
53: 7 seq.], preached to him Jesus." That is, Philip showed 
to the eunuch that Christ is the subject of description in Isa» 
liii. 

Acts 17: 2 seq., Paul " as his custom was . . . discoursed to 
them from the Scriptures, explaining [them], and setting 
forth that Christ must needs suffer and rise from the dead." 
In other words, the Messianic predictions in the Old Testa- 
ment must be fulfilled. 

Acts 17: 11, the apostle praises the Beraeans, not only be- 
cause " they received the word with all readiness, but inves- 
tigated the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so ;" 
i. e. they put the preaching of Paul to the test of the O. Test. 
Scriptures ; and they are called by him more noble for so 
doing. 

Acts 18: 24, Apollos is commended as an eloquent preach- 
er, because " he was mighty in the Scriptures." If the Old 
Testament, as Mr. Norton avers, is a book utterly inconsis- 
tent with Christianity, how could Apollos be an excellent 
preacher from the circumstance of being uncommonly versed 
in it ? Moreover it is said of him again, in v. 28, that "he 
showed from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." 

Rom 1: 2, Paul asserts that "the Gospel was before an- 
nounced by the prophets in the holy Scriptures." 

In Bom. 4: 3, the same apostle appeals to " what the Scrip- 
28 



326 § 18. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 

ture saith," in order to establish the doctrine of justification 
by faith. In Eom. 9: 17, he does the same thing in order to 
establish the divine sovereignty : " For the Scripture saith to 
Pharaoh, etc." In Rom. 10: 11, he makes the same appeal, 
" for the Scripture saith ;" this he does in order to establish 
the certainty that the believer shall be rewarded. In Rom. 
15: 4, he speaks of our possessing hope, "through the con- 
solation of the Scripture." In Rom. 16: 26, he speaks of 
the gospel as being made known to the Gentiles " by the 
prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the 
eternal God unto obedience of the faith." And are these the 
books, then, which we are at liberty to pronounce inconsistent 
with the gospel ? 

In 1 Cor. 15: 3, Paul says that " Christ died for our sins, 
according to the Scriptures." And in v. 4, that " He was 
buried, and rose again on the third day, according to the 
Scriptures." In Gal. 3: 8, he says, that "the Scripture 
.... before announced the gospel to Abraham, that in him 
all the nations should be blessed." In 1 Tim. 5: 18, he ap- 
peals to Scripture as confirming the sentiment, that Hhe la- 
bourer is worthy of his hire/ 

James, in 2: 8, speaks of " the royal law," (Thou shalt love 
thy neighbor as thyself), as being obligatory, because it is 
contained " in the Scripture." In 2: 23, he appeals to Scrip- 
ture as confirming his doctrine of justification by faith. In 
4: 5, he reproves those who think that the Scripture speaks 
xsvojg, i. e. to no purpose. 

Peter refers to the Scripture as containing the revelation 
of a Saviour precious and all-sufficient, 1 Pet. 2: 6. In 2 
Pet. 3: 16, he speaks of those who pervert the words of Paul 
to their own destruction, " as they do the other Scriptures ;" 
i. e. the O. Test. Scriptures are put beside the writings of 
Paul, and are ranked with them. 

Thus much under the single category of appeal to the O. 
Test. Scriptures by naming them as a whole, or as a collec- 
tion of sacred writings under the distinctive appellation of ^ 
yoaqn'i or al yQaqai, the Scripture or the Scriptures. In sev- 



§ 18. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 327 

ral of the passages, their inspiration is expressly declaimed ; in 
all of them their paramount authority is openly and plainly 
assumed or avowed. It is impossible to call this in question, 
when the matter and manner of the appeal are fully taken in- 
to view. 

(3) Passages which directly declare, or plainly imply, the 
inspiration of the O. Test, writers. 

2 Tim. 3: 14 — 17, " Do thou continue in the things that 
thou hast learned and believed : knowing from whom thou 
hast learned them, and that from childhood thou hast known 
the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto 
salvation, through faith in Christ Jesus. Ilaaa yQacfrj d-son- 
vevazog, every Scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable 
for doctrine, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in 
righteousness, that the man of God may be perfeet ; thoi'ough- 
ly furnished unto every good work." 

On this notable passage but few remarks are needed. (1) 
Every Scripture, naoa youcpij, i. e. every constituent part or 
portion of the Scriptures, as the omission of the article of 
course implies, (not naoa i) yQ'eupq, all the Scripture, spoken 
of as merely a collective unity), is inspired of God. Qeo- 
nvevozog cannot mean less than this. If we might coin a 
new English word, to meet the Greek one here employed, 
we might render it God-inspirited, which would be altogether 
literal and exaet. All attempts to fritter away this plain 
meaning are but vain. To appeal to the inspiration of hea- 
then poets, and to the loose meaning of inspired among some 
of the Christian fathers, is nothing to the purpose. What did 
Paid mean ? is the question. And of this there can be no 
philological doubt. Even De Wette, with all his predomi- 
nating incredulity, says of ftsonvsvozog, that "it is an expres- 
sion and idea which stands connected with nvev^ia, lit. breath, 
since one regarded the energy of the divine Spii'it as causing 
the breath of life ; and here it means inspired, durchgeistet, 
i.e. animated through and through by the Spirit, geistvoll, i. e. 
full of the Spirit." The manner in which the Spii'it operated, 
is not here described by Paul, and must be learned, if learned 



328 § 18. APPEALS OP NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 

at all, from other passages of Scripture. (2) These Scrip- 
tures are not only Isq&i, holy, sacred, but " they are- able to 
make wise unto salvation," even that salvation which is " by 
faith in Christ Jesus." And is such a book, then, in opposi- 
tion to Christianity? And must it be proscribed and re- 
jected by an " enlightened Christian ?" So Mr. Norton says ; 
but Paul has presented the matter in a very different light. 

(3) " Every Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for convic- 
tion, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." How 
all this can be, in case the Old Testament is even contrary 
to the Gospel, and unworthy of our regard, is for those to ex- 
plain who maintain the latter position. Then again "the 
man of God becomes perfect, and thoroughly furnished for 
every good work," by the use of these same Scriptures. 

No one who is acquainted with ancient critical and religious 
history, will venture to maintain that any other Scriptures 
than those of the Jews, were then in general circulation, when 
Paul wrote the second epistle to Timothy. Of course, Paul 
has said all this of the Old Testament. More cannot be said 
by any one, and more need not be said. 

The only alternative is to deny the genuineness of the epis- 
tle, or to reject the authority of Paul. Objections, I am 
aware, have of late often been made against the genuineness 
of the epistle ; but they cannot stand before the tribunal of 
criticism. And as to rejecting the authority of Paul, I have 
only to say, that he who does this, raises the simple standard 
of infidelity, and enlists under it. It is not my present object 
to dispute with such. 

2 Pet. 1: 20, 21, " Knowing this first, that no prophecy is 
of one's own power of disclosure ; for prophecy in time past 
was not introduced by the will of man, but holy men of God 
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." I have trans- 
lated tdlag imlvoscog by one's power of disclosure. This 
locus vexatissimus, I am well aware, has been moulded into 
almost every shape, and made to mean a great variety of 
things. Among the rest it has been made to patronize the 
doctrine, that no prophet understood or could explain what he 



§ 18. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 329 

himself, or at least his own words, meant ! Of such an ab- 
surdity I say nothing. The plain sense is, that prophecy 
comes, not by the prophet's own power of disclosure, or of re- 
moving the veil from the future, but by the inspiration of the 
Holy Ghost. Let it be noted, that Peter employs the generic 
appellation nQo^nda (without the article), prophecy in gene- 
ral, all that is prophetic in the Old Testament ; and in the 
Jewish sense, everything there is the work of prophets. The 
prophets were vno nvsvpatog aylov (psoojievot,, borne along, 
moved, influenced, by the Holy Ghost. Thus does Peter 
exactly correspond with the d-eonvs-vOTog of Paul. 

In the preceding context Peter speaks of the prophetic 
word, i. e. the Old Test. Scriptures, as a " light shining in a 
dark place," and as something fiefiaiozsoov, more steadfast, 
sure, more to be depended on, than what the three disciples had 
seen and heard in the mount of transfiguration ; at least such 
seems to be his sentiment, in the connection in which his 
words stand. This is a very striking passage, and must be 
quite revolting to the feelings of Mr. Norton and those who 
sympathize with him. 

In Heb. 3: 7, Paul cites a text of Scripture and says con- 
cerning it : " As the Holy Spirit saith." He does the same 
in Heb. 12:15, and introduces it by saying: "The Holy 
Spirit testifies to us." 

In 1 Pet. 1: 10 — 12 is a passage, which affirms that "re- 
specting [gospelj salvation, the prophets have sought out and 
made diligent scrutiny, who prophesied respecting the grace 
that was to be revealed ... To whom it was revealed, that 
not unto themselves, but unto us, they ministered the things 
which," etc. The idea of a revelation supernaturally made 
lies upon the very face of this representation. 

Heb. 1: 1 declares, that " God at sundry times and in di- 
vers manners spake to the fathers by the prophets." If Gob 
spake by them, then who shall be absolved from listening to 
what he said ? If God spake by them, then they have not 
said what is contradictory to Christianity, or subversive of it. 

In 1 Cor. 9: 9, 10, Paul, after quoting a passage from the 
28* 



330 § 18. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 

Mosaic Law, forbidding to muzzle the ox which treadeth out 
the corn, adds : " Doth God care for oxen ? Or does he say 
this truly for our sakes ? On our account it was written, that 
he who plougheth should plough in hope, and he who reapeth 
■should be a partaker in hope." On this I remark that the 
apostle says, (1) That God says what is here quoted. (2) 
That he says it mainly on our account ; and of course it fol- 
lows that we are to read and profit by it. 

In Rom. 1: 1, Paul says, that God before declared the gos- 
pel, by his prophets, in the holy Scriptures." The authority 
of these Scriptures then consists in this, viz. that they contain 
the declarations of God. 

But enough on the topic of inspiration. It is impossible, 
after acquiring a proper knowledge of what Philo and Jose- 
phus have unequivocally taught us in regard to the belief of 
the Jews in the inspiration of their Scriptures, to read the 
New Testament and overlook the fact, that everywhere and 
always the supreme authority of the sacred books is either 
directly asserted, or conceded by implication. Scripture is the 
supreme arbiter, in all cases where a decision is required. The 
validity of the Redeemer's mission, and his claims, are tried 
by it ; the doctrines which the apostles preached are tried by 
it ; every virtue either of morality or piety is sanctioned by 
it. It is impossible to doubt what the apostles and evange- 
lists have taught, in respect to this subject, without at the 
same time assuming, that our own subjective views are to 
be the paramount authority, in all cases where authority is 
Heeded. 

(4) Under the head of miscellaneous recognitions of the 
authority of the O. Test. Scriptures, it were easy to produce 
texts almost without number. I must content myself, how- 
ever, with a general exhibition of them, thus putting the read- 
er in a condition easily to pursue this investigation in its mi- 
nuter particulars, by giving him an index to the passages of 
the Old Testament which are cited or alluded to in the New. 



i8. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 



331 



Matthew. 


21: 16— Ps. 8: 2. 


1: 23— Isa. 7: 14. 


21: 42— Ps. 118: 22. 


2: 6— Mic. 5: 1. 


21: 44— Isa. 8: 14 seq. 


2: 15— Hos. 11: 1. 


22: 24— Deut. 25: 5. 


2: 18— Jer. 31: 15. 


22. 32— Ex. 3: 6. 


3: 3— Isa. 40: 3-5. 


22: 37— Deut. 6: 5. 


4: 4— Deut. S: 3. 


22: 39— Lev. 19: 18. 


4:6— Ps. 91: 11. 


22: 44— Ps. 110: 1. 


4: 7 — Deut. 6: 16. 


23: 35— Gen. 4: 8. 


4: 10— Deut. 6: 13. 


23: 39— Ps. 118: 26. 


4: 15 seq. — Isa. 8: 23. 9: 1. 


24: 15— Dan. 9: 27. 


5: 5— Ps. 37: 11. 


24: 29— Isa. 13: 10. 


5: 21— Ex. 20: 13. 


24: 37 seq. — Gen. 7: 4 seq. 


5: 27— Ex. 20: 14. 


26:31— Zech. 13:7. 


5: 31— Deut. 24: 1. 


27: 9— Zech. 11: 12 seq. 


5: 33— Ex. 20: 7. 


27: 35— Ps. 22: 18. 


5: 38— Ex. 21: 24. Lev. 24: 20. 


27: 43— Ps. 22: 8. 


5: 43— Lev. 19: 18. 


27: 46— Ps. 22: 1. 


8: 4 — Lev. 14: 2 seq. 




8: 17— Isa. 53: 4. 


Mark. 


9: 13— Hos. 6: 6. 


1: 2— Mai. 3: 1. 


10: 35, 36 — Mic. 7: 6. 


1: 3— Isa. 40: 3. 


11: 5 — Isa. 29: 18 seq. 61: 1. 


1: 44— Lev. 14: 2 seq. 


11: 10— Mai. 3: 1. 


2: 25, 6—1 Sam. 21: 6. 


11: 14— Mai. 4: 5. 


4: 12— Isa. 6: 9. 


12: 3—1 Sam. 21: 6. 


7: 6, 7— Isa. 29: 13. 


12: 5— Num. 28: 9. 


7: 10— Ex. 20: 12. 


12: 7— Hos. 6: 6. 


9: 14— Isa. 66: 44. 


12: 18 seq. — Isa. 42: 1 seq. 


10: 4— Deut. 24: 1. 


12:40— Jon. 1: 17. 


10: 7 — Gen. 2: 24. 


12: 41 — Jon. 3: 5 seq. 


11: 17— Isa. 56: 7. Jer. 7: 11 


12: 42—1 Kings 10: 1. 


12: 10, 11— Ps. 118: 22. 


13: 14 seq. — Isa. 6: 9 seq. 


12: 19 — Deut. 25: 5. 


13: 35— Ps. 78: 2. 


12: 26— Ex. 3: 6. 


15: 4— Ex. 20: 12. Deut. 5: 16. 


12: 29 seq.— Deut. 6: 4 seq. 


15: 8, 9— Isa. 29: 13. 


12: 31— Lev. 19: 18. 


19: 5— Gen. 2: 24. 


12: 36— Ps. 110: 1. 


19: 7, 8— Deut. 24: 1. 


13: 14— Dan. 9: 27. 


19: 18 seq. — Ex. 20 : 12 seq. 


13: 94 — I S a. 13: 9 seq. 


Lev. 19: 


14: 27— Zech. 13: 7. 


21: 5— Zech. 9: 9. 


1 15: 28— Isa. 53: 12. 


21: 13— Isa. 56: 7. Jer. 7. 


] 15: 34 — 0-2: 1. 



332 § 18. appeals or new test, to the old. 



Luke. 


7: 38— Is, 58: 11. 


1: 33— Dan. 2: 44. 


7: 42— Ps. 89: 4. Mic. 5: 1. 


1: 55— Gen. 17: 19. 


8: 5— Lev. 20: 10. 


1: 73— Gen. 22: 16. 


8: 17— Deut. 17: 6. 


2: 21, 22— Lev. 12: 3, 4. 


10: 34— Ps. 82: 6. 


2: 23— Ex. 13: 2. 


12: 13— Ps. 118: 25, 26. 


2: 24— Lev. 12: 6. 


12: 15— Zech. 9: 9. 


3: 4 seq.— Is. 40: 3 seq. 


12: 34— Ps. 110: 4. 


4: 4— Deut. 8: 3. 


12: 33— Is. 53: 1. 


4: 8— Deut. 6: 13. 


12: 40— Isa. 6: 9, 10. 


4: 10, 11— Ps. 91: 11. 


13:18— Ps. 41:9. 


4: 12— Deut 6: 16. 


15: 25— Ps. 35: 19. 


4: 18, 19— Isa. 61: 1 seq. 


17: 12— Ps. 109: 8, 17. 


4: 25, 26—1 K. 17: 1, 9. 


19: 24— Ps. 22: 18. 


4: 27—2 K. 5: 14. 


19: 28— Ps. 69: 21. 


5: 14— Lev. 14: 2—4. 


19: 36— Ex. 12: 46. 


6: 3, 4—1 Sam. 21: 6. 


19: 37— Zech. 12: 10. 


7: 27— Mai. 3: 1. 




10: 27— Deut. 6: 5. Lev. 19: 18. 


Acts. 


10: 28— Lev. 18: 5. 


1: 16, 20— Ps. 69: 25. 109: 8. 


11: 31—1 K. 10: 1. 


2: 16 seq.— Joel 2: 28 seq. 


11: 51— Gen. 4: 8. 


2: 25— Ps. 16: 8. 


13: 35— Ps. 118: 26. 


2: 31— Ps. 16: 10. 


17: 27— Gen. 7: 7. 


2: 34— Ps. 110: 1. 


17: 29— Gen. 19: 15. 


3: 22— Deut. 18: 15. 


17: 32— Gen. 19: 26. 


3: 25— Gen. 12: 3. 


18: 20— Ex. 20: 12 seq. 


4: 11— Ps. 118: 22. 


19: 46— Isa. 56: 7. Jer. 7: 11. 


4: 25— Ps. 2: 1. 


20: 17— Ps. 118: 22. 


7: 2— Gen. 12: 1. 


20: 28— Deut. 25: 5. 


7: 6, 7— Gen. 15: 13 seq. 


20: 37— Ex. 3: 6. 


7: 8— Gen. 17: 10. 


20: 42, 43— Ps. 110: 1. 


7: 9— Gen. 37: 28. 


22: 37— Is. 53: 12. 


7: 17— Ex. 1: 7. 


23: 30— Hos. 10: 8. 


7: 20— Ex. 2: 2. 




7: 24— Ex. 2: 11. 


John. 


7: 30— Ex. 3: 2. 


1: 23— Is. 40: 3. 


7: 37— Deut. 18: 15. 


1: 51— Gen. 28: 12. 


7: 38— Ex. 19: 3. 


2: 17— Ps. 69: 9. 


7: 39— Ex. 32: 1. 


3: 14— Num. 21: 8, 9. 


7: 42— Amos 5: 25. 


6: 31— Ps. 78: 24. 


7: 45— Josh. 3: 14. 


6: 45— Is. 54: 13. 


7: 46 — 2 Sam. 7: 1 seq. 


7: 22— Lev. 12: 3. 


7: 48— Isa. 66: 1. 



18. APPEALS OP NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 



8: 32— Isa. 53: 7. 
10: 34— Dent. 10: 17. 
13: 17— Ex. 1: 7. 12: 37 seq. 
13: 18— Deut. 1: 31. 
13: 22—1 Sam. 16: 13. Ps. 8! 

20. 
13: 33— Ps. 2: 7. 
13: 34— Isa. 55: 3. 
13: 35— Ps. 16: 10. 
12: 36—1 Kinsjs 2: 10. 
12: 41— Hab. 1: 5. 
12: 47— Isa. 49: 6. 
15: 16— Amos 9: 11. 
23: 5— Ex. 22: 28. 
28: 26— Isa. 6: 9 seq. 

Romans. 
1: 17— Hab. 2: 4. 
2: 6— Prov. 24: 12. 
2: 11— Deut. 10: 17. 
2: 24— Isa. 52: 5. 
3: 4_p s . 51; 4. 
3: 10— Ps. 14: 1 seq. 
3: 13— Ps. 5: 9. 140: 3. 
3: 14— Ps. 10: 7. 
3: 15-17— Isa. 59: 7, 8. 
3: 18— Ps. 36: 1. 
4: 3— Gen. 15: 6. 
4: 6 seq.— Ps. 32: 1 seq. 
4: H_Gen. 17: 10. 
4: 17— Gen. 17: 5. 
4: 18— Gen. 15: 5. 
7: 7— Ex. 20: 17. 
8: 36— Ps. 44: 22. 
9: 7— Gen. 21: 12. 
9: 9— Gen. 18: 10. 
9: 12— Gen. 25: 23. 
9: 13— Mai. 1:2,3. 
9: 15— Ex. 33: 19. 
9: 17— Ex. 9: 16. 
9: 20— Isa. 45: 9. 
9: 21— Jer. 18: 6. 
9: 25— Hos. 2: 23. 



9: 26— Hos. 1: 10. 

9: 27 seq.— Isa. 10: 22 seq. 

9: 29— Isa. 1: 9. 

9: 33— Isa. 8: 14. 28: 16. 
10: 5— Lev. 18: 5. 
10: 6 seq.— Deut. 30: 12 seq. 
10: 11— Isa. 28: 16. 
10: 13— Joel 2: 32. 
10: 15— Isa. 52: 7. 
10: 16— Isa. 53: 1. 
10: 18— Ps. 19: 4. 
10: 19— Deut. 32: 21. 
10: 20 seq. — Isa. 65: 1 seq. 
11:3—1 Kings 19: 10, 14. 
11: 3—1 Kings 19: 18. 
11: 8— Isa. 29: 10. 6: 9. 
11: 9 seq.— Ps. 69: 22 seq. 
11: 26— Isa. 59: 20. 
11:27— Jer. 31: 33 seq. 
11:34— Isa. 40: 13. 
11:35— Job 41: 11. 
12: 9— Amos 5: 15. 
12: 19— Deut. 32: 35. 
12: 20— Prov. 25: 21 seq. 
13: 9— Ex. 20: 13 seq. 
14: 11— Isa. 45: 23. 
15: 3— Ps. 69: 9. 
15: 9— Ps. 18: 49. 
15: 10— Deut. 32: 43. 
15: 11— Ps. 117: 1. 
15: 12— Isa. 11:10." 
15: 21— Isa. 52: 15. 

1 Corinthians. 
1: 19— Isa. 29: 14. 
1: 20— Isa. 44: 25. 
1: 21— Jer. 9: 23. 
2: 9— Isa. 64: 4. 
2: 15— Isa. 40: 13. 
3: 19— Job 5: 13. 
3:20— Ps. 94: 11. 
5: 13— Deut. 17: 7. 
6: 16— Gen. 2: 24. 



334 



18. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 



9: 9— Deut. 25: 4. 


4: 30— Gen. 10: 12. 


9: 13 — Deut. 18: 1. 


5: 14— Lev. 19: 18. 


10: 1— Ex. 13: 21. 14: 22. 




10: 3, 4— Ex. 16: 15. 17: 6. 


Ephesians. 


10: 7— Ex. 32: 6. 


2: 17— Is. 57: 19. 


10: 8— Num. 25: 1, 9. 


4: 8— Ps. 68: 18. 


10: 9— Ex. 17: 2, 7. Num. 21: 6. 


4: 26— Ps. 4: 4. 


10: 10— Num. 14: 2, 27, 29. 


4: 30— Gen. 2: 23 seq. 


10: 26— Ps. 24: 1. 


6: 2— Ex. 20: 12. 


14: 21— Is. 28: 11. 


6: 9— Job 34: 19. 


14: 34— Gen. 3: 16. 




15: 3— Is. 53: 8, 9. Ps. 22. 


Philippians. 


15: 4— Ps. 16: 10. 


2: 10— Is. 45: 23. 


15:25— Ps. 110:1. 




15: 27— Ps. 8: 6. 


Colossians. 


15: 32— Is. 22: 13. 


2: 11— Deut. 30: 6. 


15: 45— Gen. 2: 7. 


3: 25— Job 34: 19. 


15: 54, 55— Is. 25: 8. Hos. 13:14. 






2 Thessalonians. 


2 Corinthians. 


2: 4— Dan. 11: 36. 


4: 13— Ps. 116: 10. 


2: 8— Is. 11: 4. 


6: 2— Is. 49: 8. 




6: 16— Lev. 26: 12. 


1 Timothy. 


6: 17— Is. 52: 11. 


2: 13— Gen. 1: 27. 2: 18. 


6: 18— Jer. 31: 1, 9. 


2: 14— Gen. 3: 6. 


8: 15 — Ex. 16, 18. 


2: 18— Deut. 25: 4. Lev. 19: 13. 


9: 7— Ex. 35: 5. 


6: 7— Ps. 49: 17. 


9: 9— Ps. 112: 9. 




9: 10— Is. 55: 10. 


2 Timothy. 


11: 3— Gen. 3: 4. 


2: 19— Num. 16: 5. 




3:8— Ex. 7: 11,22. 


Galatians. 




2: 16— Ps. 143: 2. 


Hebrews. 


3: 6— Gen. 15: 6. 


1: 5— Ps. 2: 7. 


. 3: 8— Gen. 12: 3. 


1: 6— Ps. 97: 7. 


3: 10— Deut. 27: 26. 


1: 7— Ps. 104: 4. ■ 


3: 11— Hab. 2: 4. 


1: 8— Ps. 45: 6 seq. 


3: 12— Lev. 18: 5. 


1: 10 seq.— Is. 34: 4. 51: 6. 


3: 13— Deut. 21: 23. 


1: 13— Ps. 110: 1. 


3: 16— Gen. 17: 7. 


2: 2— Deut. 27: 26. 


3: 17— Ex. 1'2: 40 seq. 


2: 6 seq.— Ps. 8: 4 seq. 


4: 22— Gen. 21: 2, 9. 


2: 12— Ps. 22: 22. 


4: 27— Is. 54: 1. 


2: 13— Ps. 18: 2. 



§ 18. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 



335 



2: 13— Is. 8: 18. 


11: 34— Dan. 3: 20 seq. 


3: 2— Num. 12: 7. 


11: 35—2 K. 4: 20. 


3: 7— Ps. 95: 7. 


12: 5 seq. — Pro v. 3: 11 seq. 


3: 17— Num. 14: 32—37. 


12: 9— Num. 27: 16. 


4:3— Ps. 95:11. 


12: 12 seq.— Is. 35: 3. 


4: 4— Gen. 2: 2. 


12: 15— Deut. 29: 18. 


4: 7— Ps. 95: 7. 


12: 16— Gen. 25: 31 seq. 


5: 4—1 Chron. 23: 13. 


12: 18— Ex. 19: 12 seq. 


5: 5— Ps. 2: 7. 


12: 20— Ex. 19: 13. 


5: 6— Ps. 110: 4. 


12: 21— Deut. 9: 19. 


6: 14— Gen. 22: 16. 


12: 26— Hag. 2: 6. 


7: 1— Gen. 14: 18. 


12: 29— Deut. 4: 24. 


7: 17, 21— Ps. 110: 4. 


13: 5— Josh. 1: 5. 


8: 5— Ex. 25: 40. 


13:6— Ps. 118:6. 


8: 8 seq.— Jer. 3J: 31 seq. 


13: 11— Lev. 4: 11 seq. 16: 


9: 13— Lev. 16: 14. 


13: 14— Mic. 2: 10. 


9: 20— Ex. 24: 8. 




10: 5 seq.— Ps. 40: 7 seq. 


James. 


10: 12, 13— Ps. 110: 1. 


1: 19— Prov. 17: 27. 


10: 16 seq. — Jer. 31: 33 seq. 


2: 1— Lev. 19: 15. 


10: 28— Deut. 17: 6. 


2: 8— Lev. 19: 18. 


10: 30— Deut. 32: 35. 


2: 11— Ex. 20: 13 seq. 


10: 37 seq.— Hab. 2: 3 seq. 


2: 21— Gen. 22: 9 seq. 


11: 3— Gen. 1: 1. Ps. 33: 6. 


2; 23— Gen. 15: 6. 


11: 4— Gen. 4: 4. 


2 : 25— Josh. 2: 1. 


11: 5— Gen. 5: 24. 


4: 6 — Prov. 3: 34. 


11: 7— Gen. 6: 14—22. 


5: H—Job 1:20 seq. 


11: 8— Gen. 12: 1, 4. 


5: 17 seq.— 1 K. 17: 1 seq 


11: 13— Gen. 47: 9. 




11: 17— Gen. 22: 1 seq. 


1 Peter. 


11: 18— Gen. 21: 12. 


1: 16— Lev. 11: 44. 


11: 20— Gen. 27: 27 seq. 


1: 24 seq. — Is. 40: 6 seq. 


11: 21— Gen. 48: 16. 47: 31. 


2: 3— Ps. 34: 8. 


11: 22— Gen. 50: 24. 


2:4— Ps. 118:22. 


11: 23— Ex. 2: 2. 


2: 6— Is. 28: 16. 


11:28— Ex. 12: 11 seq. 


2: 7— Ps. 118: 22. 


11: 29— Ex. 14: 22. 


2: 9 — Ex. 19: 5 seq. 


11: 30— Josh. 6: 20. 


2: 10— Hos. 2: 23. 


11:31— Josh. 2: 1. 


2: 17— Prov. 24: 21. 


11: 32— Judg. 6: 11 seq. 4: 14. 


2: 22— Is. 53: 4 seq. 


14: 1 seq. 11: 1 seq. 1 Sam. 


3: 16— Gen. 18: 12. 


6: 13 seq. 1 Sam. 3: 19 seq. 


3: 10 seq.— Ps. 34: 12 seq. 


Judg. 14: 5 sq. Dan. 6: 16 sq. 


3: 14 seq.— Is. 8: 12 seq. 



§ 18. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 



3: 20— Gen. 6: 13 seq. 
4: 8— Prov. 10: 12. 
4: 18— Prov. 11:31. 
5: 5— Prov. 3: 34. 
5: 7— Ps. 55: 22. 

2 Peter. 
2: 5— Geo. 7: 23. 
2: 6— Gen. 19: 24 seq. 
2: 15 seq.— Num. 22. 
2: 22— Prov. 26: 11. 
3: 4— Ezek. 12: 21 seq. 
3: 5, 6— Gen. 2: 6. 7: 21. 
3: 8— Ps. 90: 4. 
3: 10— Ps. 102: 26 seq. 

1 John. 
1: 8— Prov. 20: 9. 
3: 5— Is. 53: 4. 
3: 12— Gen. 4: 8. 

Jude. 

v. 5 — Num. 14: 35 seq. 
v. 7— Gen. 19. 

v. 11 — Gen. 4: 5 seq. Num. 
16: 1 seq. 

Apocalypse. 
1:6— Ex. 19:6. 
1: 7— Zech. 12: 10. 
1: 14, 15— Dan. 10:5,6. 7:9. 

Ezek. 1: 27. 8: 2. 
2: 14— Num. 25: 1, 2. 31: 16. 
2: 20—1 K. 16: 31. 2 K. 9: 7. 
2: 27— Ps. 2: 8, 9. 
3: 7— Is. 22: 22. 
3: 9— Is. 45: 14. 
3: 19— Prov. 3: 11: 12. 
Chap. iv. v. — Ezek. i. ii. Is. vi. 
4:6— Ezek. 1:22. Ex.24: 10. 
5: 11— Dan. 7: 10. 
6: 8— Ezek. 14:21. [Joel2:31. 
6: 12— Is. 24: 18—23. 34: 4. 



6: 14— Is. 34: 4. 

6: 15— Is. 2: 19—21. 

6: 16— Hos. 10: 8. 

7: 3— Ezek. 9: 4. 

8: 3.— Lev. 16: 12, 13. 

9: 3— Joel 1: 6 seq. 2: 4 seq. 

9: 14— comp. Dan. 10: 13, 20. 

9: 20— Ps. 115: 4. 135: 15. 
10: 2— Ezek. 2: 9, 10. 
10: 3— Is. 21: 8. 
10: 4— Dan. 8: 26. 12: 4-9. 
10: 9-11— Ez. 2: 8. 3: 3. 
11: 4 seq.— Zech. 4:2-14. 
11:5— 2 Kings 1:9—12. 
11: 6—1 Kings 17: 1. Ez. 7: 19, 

20. 
11: 7— Dan. 7: 7, 8. 
11: 10— Esth. 9: 19,22. 
11: 15 seq.— Dan. 2: 44. 7:27. 
12: 1 seq.— Mic 4: 9, 10. 5:2,3. 
12: 5— Ps. 2: 9. 

12:7— Dan. 10: 13, 21. 11: 1. 
12: 1. 

12: 10 — Job 1: 6 seq. 2: 4 seq. 
Zech. 3: 1. 

]2: 14— Dan. 7: 25. 12: 7. 

13: 1 seq. — Dan. 7: 3 seq. 

13: 10— Gen. 9:6. 

13: 14— Dan. 3: 1 seq. 

14:8— Isa. 51: 9 Jer. 51: 8. 

14: 10— Ps. 75: 8. Isa. 51: 22. 
Jer. 25: 15. 

J4: 14— Dan. 7: 13. 

14: 15— Joel 3: 13. 

14: 19, 20— Isa. 63: 1 seq. 

15: 3— Ex. 15: I seq. 

15: 4— Jer. 10: 7. Isa. 66: 23. 

15: 8— Ex. 40: 34 seq. 1 Kings 
8: 11. Isa. 6: 4. 

16: 2 seq. — Ex. 9: 8 seq. 

16: 9— Dan. 5: 22 seq. 

16: 12— Isa. II: 15, 16. []6. 

16: 19— Isa. 51: 22. Jer. 25: 15 



18. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 



337 



17: 1— Jer. 51: 13. 

17: 3— Ezek. 8. 3. 

17:4— Jer. 51:7. 

17: 12— Dan. 7: 20. 

17: 15— Isa. 8: 7. Jer. 47: 2. 

18: 2 seq.— Isa. 21: 1-10. 13: 21. 

34:14seq. Jer. 50: 39. 51:8. 
18: 4— Isa. 48 : 20. Jer. 50 : 8. 

51: 6, 45. 
18: 6— Jer. 50: 15, 29. Ps. 127:8. 
18: 7, 8— Isa. 47: 7-9. 
18: 11 seq. — Ezek. xxvii. Isa. 

xxiii. 
18: 18— Isa. 34: 10. 
18: 20— Isa. 44: 23. 49: 13. Jer. 

51: 48. 
18:21— Jer. 51:63,64. 
18: 22— Isa. 24: 8. Jer. 7: 34. 

25: 10. 
18: 23— Isa. 23: 8. 
19: 2— Deut. 32: 43. 
19: 3— Isa. 34: 10. 
19:4_1 Chron, 16:36. Neh, 

5: 13. 
19: 6— Dan. 2: 44. 7: 27. 
19: 13— Is. 63: 1 seq. 



19: 15— Ps. 2: 9. Isa. 63: 3. 

19: 17, 18- Ezek. 39: 17, 18. 
19: 20— Isa. 30: 33. Dan. 7: 11, 

26. 
20: 4— Dan. 7: 9, 22, 27. 
20: 8 seq. — Ezek. 38: 1 seq. 
20: 11, 12— Dan. 7:9, 10. 
21: 1— Isa. 65: 17. 66: 22. 
21: 2 seq. — Ezek. xl-xlviii; 
21: 3— Ezek. 37: 27. 
21: 4— Isa. 25: 8. 35: 10. 
21: 5— Isa. 43: 19. 
21: 10— Ezek. 40: 2. 
21: 11 seq. — Ezek. 48: 31 seq. 
21: 15— Ezek. 40: 3. 
21: 19 seq.— Isa. 54:11, 12. 
21: 23— Isa. 24: 23. 60: 19. 
21: 24— Isa. 60: 3 seq. 66: 12. 
22: 1 seq. — Ezek. 47: 1, 12. 

Zech. 14: 8. 
22: 3— Zech. 14: 11. 
22: 5— Isa. 24: 23. 60: 19. 
22: 10— Dan. 8: 26. 12:4. 
22: 16— Isa. II: 1, 10. 
22: 17— Isa. 55: 1. 
22: 19— Deut. 4: 2. 12: 32. 



Large as this list is of passages from the Old Testament 
which are cited or alluded to in the New, it is far from com- 
prehending all of this nature, which the New Testament con- 
tains. The truth is, that there is not a page, nor even a par- 
agraph of any considerable length, belonging to the New 
Testament, which does not bear the impress of the Old Tes- 
tament upon it. What else is the so called idiom of the He- 
brew Greek of the New Testament, but an impression of this 
kind ? It is indeed true, that some few peculiarities in the 
forms and grammatical structure of the Hebrew Greek, led in 
part to the bestowment of this appellation upon it. But after 
all, the grammatical departures from common Greek are now 
known and acknowledged to be but few ; while the lexical 
ones arise mostly from the necessity of the case, (new things 



338 § 18. APPEALS OF NETV TEST. TO THE OLD, 

demanding either new names, or new meanings of old words, 
to designate them), or else from the manner in which the 
kindred Hebrew verbs, etc. are employed in the Old Testa- 
ment. In the latter case they help to exhibit the influence 
which the Old Testament has had upon the New throughout. 

No one who has an intimate acquaintance with both Tes- 
taments, in their original languages, can possibly fail to re- 
cognize the numberless transfers of the spirit and the modes 
of expression from the Old to the New. It is' a thing to be 
felt, and not to be adequately described. It occurs so often, 
everywhere, and in respect to everything, that one would not 
know where to begin, or where to end, such a description. 
No one must imagine, that the list of quotations or cases of 
allusion above conveys to him any really adequate view of 
the subject. The truth is, that it is no more than the mere 
beginning of such a view. But it presents to every reader, 
whether learned or unlearned, what is palpable and undenia- 
ble, and what must serve to convince a candid mind, that the 
N. Test, writers everywhere lean upon, or stand closely con- 
nected with, the writers of the Old Testament. 

It may be proper to remark, in order to prevent any mis- 
understanding on the part of the reader, that oftentimes he 
will find only some particular part of a verse in the New Tes- 
tament which is referred to — some expression in that verse — 
the object of comparison between the New Testament and 
the Old : and so in respect to verses in the Old Testament 
whieh I have taken as being related to expressions in the 
New. If he does not at once see the point of comparison, 
(which may sometimes happen), let him not forthwith con- 
clude that there is none. Some mistakes I may have made, 
in recording so many quotations ; for in a work so laborious 
as such a comparison, and trying to the patience, who might 
not make mistakes ? It may be, that in some cases where I 
have supposed a reference to the Old Testament, it might not 
have been so in the mind of the writer. There is room, in 
a few cases, for difference of opinion with regard to such a 
matter. But, on the whole, I hope and trust the list will be 



§ 1-8, APPEALS OF NEW TEST, TO THE OLD. 339 

found to be -as accurate as could be reasonably demanded. 
Possibly tbere are a few instances, that should be struck from 
it ; but should this be done, I have only to say, that there are 
hundreds of expressions and thoughts, in the New Testament, 
modelled after the Old Testament, to which I have made no 
reference. I have even stricken out not a few of Knapp's 
list of quotations, at the end of his Greek Testament, because 
I wished to retain none which did not seem to be palpable. 

Among the several writers of the Gospels, the reader will 
perceive that there is not much difference in regard to the 
frequency of resort to the Old Testament, if one takes into 
view the comparative length of their productions. The book 
of Acts, the epistles to the Romans and to the Hebrews, I. 
Peter, and the Apocalypse, abound most in references to the 
Old Testament. Above all is the Apocalypse the most re- 
markable for this. While John has not made, in this book, a 
single quotation in the usual way of express appeal, he has, 
in more than one hundred cases, beyond all doubt drawn his 
modes of expression and thought from the O. Test. Scrip- 
tures, using every part of them indiscriminately, but mostly 
the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. Near- 
ly one fifth part of all the references, in the New Testament 
to the ancient Scriptures, belong to the Apocalypse. Thus 
much in the way of explanation. 

After this general view of the subject, I proceed to make a 
few special remarks on the list above exhibited. 

(1) Many of the passages here noted, in the same manner 
as those before cited at length, have respect to Old Testament 
prophecies which are declared to have been fulfilled. An in- 
telligent reader will easily perceive, that this statement covers 
much ground. The New Testament writers make use of the 
formula vva 7zXi]Q0}&rj (that it might be fidfilled, or so that it 
was fulfilled), to a wide extent. Not only predictions, in the 
proper and limited sense of the word, are said to be fulfilled, 
but also in cases where the type is answered by the appear- 
ance of the antitype, (e. g. Christ our passover-lamb) ; and 
also in cases where the event related in the New Testament 



340 § 18. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 

corresponds closely to the leading features of similar events 
related in the Old Testament. For an example of the last, 
we may appeal to Matt. 2: 15 where the statement is, that 
Jesus was carried away to Egypt, for the sake of avoiding 
the massacre at Bethlehem, in order that the Scripture might 
be fulfilled which saith : " Out of Egypt have I called my 
Son." Now if we turn to Hosea 11: 1 (the passage here 
cited), we find it to run thus : " When Israel was a child, 
then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Now 
here is a mere historical declaration respecting a past event, 
and nothing at all of prediction in the proper sense. The 
nlriQOJOig, in this case, consists in the striking points of resem- 
blance between the exile in Egypt and the deliverance from 
it, as it respects both of the parties in view. And so, of 
many other texts referred to in the New Testament. 

It is deeply to be regretted, that more narrow and confined 
views of this subject, (by which every fulfilment, TtX^Qcaaig, 
was made to correspond with some real and direct prediction), 
should have given occasion to boundless allegorizing, and to 
the making out of a double sense for the words of the ancient 
Scriptures, and to helping out the construction of supposed 
predictions, contained in simple historical narration, by in- 
venting a VTtovoia or occult sense for the words of the narration. 
More enlarged views of the habitude of the Jews, in regard 
to the use which they made of the Old Testament, specially 
in respect to what they called & fulfilment of it, might have 
prevented all this. But now it will be a long time, (so deep 
has the infection taken root), before the malady can be cured. 
But on this I cannot dwell. 

(2) In every part of the New Testament, facts related in 
the Old Testament history are appealed to ; not common and 
civil occurrences only, but miraculous ones. Such are the 
flood, the destruction of Sodom, the passage of the Red Sea, 
the manna of the desert, the feats of Samson, the miracles 
of Elijah and Elisha and others, the swallowing up of Jonah 
by the whale, the deliverance of Shadrach and Meshach and 
Abednego from the fiery furnace, the safety of Daniel in the 



§ 18. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 841 

lions' den, and other things of the like extraordinary nature. 
In a word, the whole of the Old Testament history, with all 
its extraordinary narrations, and all the miraculous events 
which many of them imply, are everywhere appealed to, and 
are regarded by the Saviour and his apostles as absolute ver- 
ities. 

(3) Principles and precepts inculcated by the gospel are 
everywhere established, or enforced, or illustrated, by an ap- 
peal to the Old Testament. There is a great variety here 
in the method of appeal, according to tbe object which the 
writer has in view. Sometimes it is made simply on the 
ground of the authority which is conceded to the Old Testa- 
ment. Sometimes merely to compare ancient with recent 
things, and repel any accusation of novelty. Sometimes 
merely to cast light on anything which may seem to be ob- 
scure. But in whatever way the appeal is made, there is still 
at the basis of it the idea of a standard authority — a tribunal 
before which causes are to be judged — in the Scriptures of 
the Old Testament. " All Scripture is inspired of God," is 
not a sentiment of Paul only, but it rules and reigns in every 
part and parcel of the New Testament. 

(4) In regard to the epistle to the Hebrews, notwithstand- 
ing the writer has undertaken to show the superiority of the 
Gospel over the Law, the divine origin of the Old Testament 
Scriptures and institutions is as fully acknowledged as in 
other parts of the New Testament, and the writer builds as 
much upon it. He has laboured everywhere to show, that 
the Jewish law and ritual were ordained, on the part of 
heaven, as introductory to the Christian dispensation. The 
significance and importance of the ritual is confined mainly to 
this. " The law was a shadow of good things to come." So 
that, whether the author was Paul, or some other person, it is 
certain that here may be found the same opinion which Paul 
expressed, when he said : " The Law is our school-master, to 
bring us to Christ." Why should it be any more inconsis- 
tent for the Godhead to make arrangements for the introduc- 
tion of the gospel, by a series of preparatory measures, than 

29* 



342 § 18. APPEALS OF NEW TEST. TO THE OLD. 

it is to bring about many other things, and even extraordina- 
ry ones, in the like way ? Our present life itself is but a 
preparatory arrangement for another. 

(5) There is something in the closing scene of Jesus' life, 
which is adapted strongly to impress our minds with the idea, 
that he gave the fullest credence and sanction to the Old 
Testament Scriptures. All the prominent circumstances of 
his sufferings and death are so arranged, that every one of 
them is the fulfilment of some portions of the ancient Scriptures. 
When he was disrobed, and the soldiers disputed about the 
possession of his garments, they cast lots to determine to 
whom the seamless coat should belong ; and all this in fulfil- 
ment, as the evangelist declares (John 19: 24), of the Scrip- 
ture in Ps. 22: 18. When his agony on the cross created an 
intense thirst, he disclosed this to the bystanders in order that 
the Scripture might be fulfilled (Ps. 69: 21) which saith : 
" They gave me gall for my meat, and in my thirst they 
gave me vinegar to drink;" John 19: 28 seq. The vinegar 
that was given him was mingled with gall, Matt. 27: 34. The 
demeanor of the populace and the priests, wagging their heads 
and saying : " He trusted in God ; let him deliver him now, 
if he will have him," is all specifically described in Ps. 22: 
7, 8. When agony beyond endurance forced from the expir- 
ing Saviour the bitter cry : " My God, my God, why hast thou 
forsaken me ?" the words were chosen from the twenty-se- 
cond Psalm (v. 1), which contains a prophecy respecting his 
sufferings and death so strikingly descriptive and historical. His 
last dying breath came forth with the voice of prayer: "Father, 
into thy hands I commend my spirit ;" words taken from Ps. 
31: 5. The soldiers, who brake the limbs of the malefactors 
that were crucified with Jesus, refrained from breaking his, 
seeing that he was already dead ; and all this (John 19: 36) 
in accordance with the symbolic and prophetic passover-lamb, 
not a bone of which was to be broken, Ex. 12: 46. One of 
the soldiers pierced his side with a spear (John 19: 34 seq.), 
and this was in fulfilment of a passage of Scripture in Zech- 
ariah (12: 10), which says : " They shall look on him whom 



§ 19. RESULT. 343 

they have pierced." And can the Evangelists and the Sa- 
viour thus appeal to the Scripture in confirmation and illus- 
tration of all these circumstances, and yet the Scripture con- 
tain no predictions respecting Christ, and no declarations on 
which we can rely ? Can the Saviour himself, in his highest 
agony, and with his expiring breath, have expressed his feel- 
ings by quoting the language of a book unworthy of our cre- 
dence and our confidence ? — But I desist lest I should be 
thought to appeal more to feeling than to argument. Certain 
it is, that no book could be thus honoured by Jesus, in which 
he had not the highest and most entire confidence. 



§ ] 9. Result. 

And now, what shall we say to these things ? The New 
Testament not only appeals to the Old in the way of illustra- 
tion, and for the sake of comparison, but everywhere appeals 
to it as the word of God, as the testimony of his Holy Spirit, 
as the oracles of his prophets, as the rule of life, as the foun- 
dation of the spiritual building which Christ came to erect. 
Its predictions, its precepts, its narrations, are interwoven with 
every part of what apostles and evangelists have written. It 
is incorporated with the very material of religious thought, in 
the minds of all the N. Test, writers. Even when they do not 
quote, and do not seem, as the hasty reader might suppose, 
at all to allude to the Old Testament, its ideas and its idioms 
are incorporated with all their productions. In the Apoca- 
lypse, John has not made one formal quotation of Scripture; 
yet no book of the New Testament, as has already been re- 
marked, so abounds in and overflows with the spirit of the Old 
Testament, as this book. The writer had, if I may be al- 
lowed the expression, steeped himself in the ancient Scrip- 
tures, until he was thoroughly imbued with them. I know 
not how I can better express my views of the style of his pro- 
duction, than in this way. And so it is, indeed, with all the 
evangelists, with Paul, with Peter, and with James. It is 
impossible to conceal this, or withdraw it from sight. It is in 



344 § 19. RESULT. 

vain to deny it before any candid reader. The most sophis- 
ticated reasoning cannot even make out an ingenious case to 
the contrary. 

What shall we say then ? What can we say less than what 
the Saviour himself said to the Jews ? " Had ye believed Mo- 
ses, ye would have believed me ; for he wrote of me. But if 
ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words ?" 
John 5: 46, 47. It is in vain to make the effort to avoid this. 
The expedient to which Mr. Norton resorts, in substituting 
spoke for wrote, and words for writings, (see above, p. 10), is 
one which shows the desperate nature of the cause which he 
is labouring to defend. On this ground, no declaration of 
Scripture anywhere, in any passage, on any subject, is exempt 
from arbitrary alteration, at the will and pleasure of every 
reader. Of course, the Scripture is not the rule of our faith, 
but our faith is the rule of Scripture. Much more ingenuous 
are those who come out at once and say : " The light within 
us is more perfect than the light without us, and much easier 
seen and apprehended ; we know of no other supreme rule 
but this. Scripture itself must be tried by this test ; and we 
accord to it our respect and regard only so far as we deem that 
its decisions agree with our own." They say this openly ; 
while Mr. Norton only acts it, but will not venture to say it. 

Why may we not ask, then, in the words of Jesus : " If ye 
believe not Moses' writings, how shall ye believe the words 
of him concerning whom Moses wrote ?" He has decided 
that this cannot be. The authority of this decision rests not 
on my reasonings, but on his own words. He has said of the 
Old Testament Scriptures, that the sum of the whole is, that 
we should " love God with all the heart, and our neigh- 
bor as ourselves," Matt. 22: 37 seq. " On these two com- 
mandments," moreover, for such are his words, " hang all the 
Law and the Prophets ;" Matt. 22: 40. That is, this is the 
very sum and substance of the Old Testament. And are 
these commands, then, to be regarded as nullities ? Are these 
in their nature repealable ? Can they be set aside ? If not, 
then Jesus has sanctioned the books which contain them. If 



§ 19. RESULT. 345 

you deny this, then you charge him with prevarication, or 
with ignorance. I cannot believe him to be impeachable on 
either ground. 

Did Jesus suspect or call in question the moral efficacy or 
influence of these "writings ? Let us listen to him, in the para- 
ble of Lazarus. The rich man in hell requests father Abra- 
ham that he would send Lazarus to his five brethren yet liv- 
ing, to warn them, so that they might not come into that place 
of torment. Abraham's reply is : " They have Moses and 
the prophets ; let them hear them." The rich man still urges 
his request : " Nay," says he, " but if one went unto them 
from the dead, they would repent." And what does the father 
of the faithful, amid the glories of the upper world where no 
darkness is, answer ? He says : " If they hear not Moses and 
the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose 
from the dead ;" Luke 16: 23 seq. The Old Test. Scriptures, 
in the estimation of Jesus, (for surely he does not put words 
into Abraham's mouth which he would not adopt as his own), 
were more efficient in the moral instruction and conviction 
and conversion of men, than the rising of one from the dead 
would be, who should lay before them all the joys of the bles- 
sed and the torments of the damned. 

Shall this book, then, be spurned away, and treated as a 
collection of fables, of barbarous maxims, and of trifling ritual 
ordinances ? This is the question. It is this very question 
which lies between the declarations of the Saviour and his 
apostles on the one hand, and the skepticism of so called Ra- 
tionalists on the other. Whom shall we believe ? There is 
no compromise in this case. He that is not for Christ is as- 
suredly against him. He who rejects his authority on this 
point, virtually rejects it on all others. Christ was either in 
the right or in the wrong, as to the estimate which he put up- 
on the Old Testament. It is impossible to doubt what that 
estimate was, after the evidence which has come before us. 
If he was in the right, then is the Old Testament a book of 
divine authority — the ancient revelation of God. If he was 
in the wrong, then we can put no confidence in his teaching. 



346 §20. conclusion. 

He might be in the wrong, with respect to every command 
and opinion which he gave ; and of consequence the whole 
system of Christianity is nothing more than an airy figure 
moving in the mirage, or one which floats along upon the 
splendid mists which surround it. 

§ 20. Conclusion. 

The history of the Canon, from its inceptive state down to 
its completion, has been traced. "We have seen, that when 
testimony and historical circumstances are fully taken into 
view, there is no good reason to doubt, that the scriptural ca- 
non was completed during the reign of Artaxerxes, i. e. dur- 
ing the time of Malachi, the last of the prophets. Somewhat 
more than 400 years old, then, were all the books of the 
Jewish Scriptures, in the time of Christ and of his apostles. 
The division of those books, with appropriate names for each 
portion, we can trace to nearly 200 years B. C, if not still 
higher. That division must have been definite and well known. 
No new books could be added, after it was completed, with- 
out the knowledge and concurrence of at least the priesthood 
among the Jews. That state of parties — Pharisee and Sad- 
ducee — who differed on the very point of exclusive Scripture 
authority, rendered it impossible for either party to augment 
or diminish the books of Scripture. The state of party can 
be traced back to a time beyond the period of the Maccabees, 
and probably the origin of it should be dated at a period not 
long after the closing of the Canon. We are of necessity 
compelled to admit, that the sacred books among the Jews 
have been unchangeable since that period. Sirachides, Philo, 
Josephus, the New Test, writers, know of no other scriptural 
books than those which we now have. The appeal to such 
books, in all their writings, is limited to these ; for when Jo- 
sephus comes to later history than what they contain, he tells 
us expressly, that the other books to which he appeals are 
entirely of a different character and credit from those which be- 
long to the Old Test. Scriptures. 



§ 20. conclusion. 347 

Besides, Josephus has told us how many books there were 
in the Hebrew Canon. We have traced these in quotations 
made by him, and Philo, and Sirachides, and the New Test, 
writers ; and with still more certainty in the lists of individ- 
ual books, by Melito, Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, 
Athanasius, Jerome, Rufinus, the Talmud, and others. We 
find them to accord with our present Old Testament. There 
cannot be any doubt left, then, that the Jews of our Saviour's 
time did receive and regard these books as of divine origin. 
And inasmuch as Christ and his apostles have never inti- 
mated directly or indirectly, that the Jews were in an error 
with regard to this subject, what grounds have we for sup- 
posing that they were ? Christ and his apostles everywhere 
quote, appeal to, and use the Jewish Scriptures, as of divine 
and paramount authority and obligation. 

What then of him who rejects them as a part of our pre- 
sent Scriptures ? He follows not the example of Christ, or 
of his apostles. Nay more. He acts in direct opposition to 
their authority and example. In so doing, as far as in him 
lies, he repeals or abrogates the decisions of the Gospel. 
Mr. Norton has averred (p. 4 above), that no enlightened 
person can be a Christian, and admit the claims made in be- 
half of the Jewish Scriptures. He has given his reasons for 
such an opinion. I have come to a very different conclusion, 
viz., that no enlightened person can well be deemed a Chris- 
tian, who rejects the claims made in behalf of the Old Testa- 
ment. I have given my reasons for it. If obedience and 
submission to the decisions of Christ and his apostles be an 
essential ingredient of Christianity, then is my conclusion in- 
evitable, in case I have duly shown that Christ and his apos- 
tles did receive the Old Testament Scriptures as divine and 
authoritative. If this be not fully shown, then must I despair 
of ever seeing any point established in sacred criticism, either 
in respect to facts or opinions. There is not a circumstance 
in all the history of true religion, appertaining to ancient 
times, that is capable of more absolute demonstration than 
this. 



348 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 



I have now done this part of rny work, and must commit 
the whole to the judgment of the reader. I ask neither more 
nor less of him, than to scan the whole process of proof with a 
scrutinizing eye ; to weigh well the historical evidence, which 
we must receive, or else reject all ancient testimony ; and 
then to decide with candour, and without prejudice or partial- 
ity. I have a right to ask for so much, in respect to such a 
cause. It is no light matter what judgment we form on a 
subject of such high and holy import as this. It is a case in 
which direct demand is made upon us for submission and de- 
ference to Christ and his apostles ; and we cannot thrust it 
aside. The simple and ultimate question is : Are we to ad- 
mit their authority and example, or to gainsay the one, and 
shun an imitation of the other f 

§ 21. Remarks in regard to the conscientious scruples of those 
who have doubts and difficidties as to the authenticity of 
some Old Testament Boohs. 

It is one thing to reject the Old Testament en masse, with- 
out paying any deference to the declarations and opinions of 
Christ and the apostles ; it is another and very different one 
merely to doubt whether some two or three books of our pre- 
sent Old Testament belong properly to the Canon, or did be- 
long to it in the time of our Saviour. The first class reject 
it on account of the many and (as they allege) incredible mi- 
racles which it relates ; on account of the imperfection and 
contradictions and incongruities to be found in its history ; 
because of the burdensome and trivial rites and ceremonies 
which it enjoins ; because of the very imperfect morality in 
respect to some important matters which it inculcates ; and 
because of the violations of the law of love which it com- 
mands, and of the cruelty and spirit of revenge which it 
breathes forth. They find no other evidence of prediction, 
even in the leading prophets, than the shrewd conjectures of 
sagacious men about the future, or the patriotic hopes and ex- 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 849 

pectations -which are breathed forth in the language of impas- 
sioned poetry. The Old Testament is, with them, merely an 
undistinguishing Collectaneiim of the remains of Jewish lite- 
rature down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, styled sa- 
cred or holy because the subject of holy things so often comes 
into view, and because the pragmatism* of the writers so of- 
ten introduces the providence and decrees of the Godhead, in 
order to account for this and that event. And as to Christ 
and his apostles, they allege that everything was done in the 
way of accommodation to Jewish views and feelings. These 
teachers did not mean to excite the jealousy or hatred of the 
Jews, by contradicting or opposing any of their capricious no- 
tions or superstitious conceits. Hence they often acted and 
spoke *x«r« ovyxctrdfiaotv, or in the way of accommodation 
or condescension to their countrymen. And the notions of 
the latter about the Scriptures were of the extreme kind, so 
that the former felt obliged to spare the mention of those 
things respecting these books, which would wound the feel- 
ings of the Jews. 

To this class principally the preceding pages have been 
devoted. I cannot quit my subject, however, without saying 
a few things to the second class, i. e. to those who only doubt 
of some two or three books of the Old Testament, but believe 
in the canonical authority of the rest, and rely upon the ordi- 
nary considerations that are alleged in favour of it. 

It seems hardly necessary to say, that this latter class may 
consist not only of sincere and earnest inquirers, but, as I 
would hope and trust, of sincere Christians. Enlightened 
ones they may also be, in respect to most other subjects of a 
religious nature ; but in regard to this, I must think that they 
have taken but partial views of the matter. 

If the Old Testament stands justly chargeable with all the 
things which are objected to it, by the first class above named ? 

* I use this word in the usual German critical sense. Pragmatism, 
in a historian, would be any undertaking to account for certain facts, 
His simple business as a historian is to relate facts ; and so pragmatism. 
and pragmatic, thus employed, become very significant. 
30 



350 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

then indeed we might safely conclude that it is not a divine 
book. If Christ and the apostles looked on the Hebrew- 
Scriptures in that light in which some recent critics place 
them, how could they possibly refrain from advertising the 
Jews of the great error and superstition which they fostered ? 
As public teachers, bound to be faithful and thorough, how 
could they acquiesce in such views of a book that contains, if 
we may trust Mr. Norton and others, many things unworthy 
of God, and subversive of his justice, his equity, and his com- 
passion, not to speak of incongruities, and trifling rites and 
ceremonies. Above all, how could Jesus, and Paul, and Pe- 
ter, and John, leave the Christian church to feel under obliga- 
tion to hold such a book as the Old Testament sacred, even 
after they had renounced all allegiance to the rites and forms 
of the Mosaic Law ? Certain it is, that Christ and his apos- 
tles combatted and refuted many of the Jewish notions, both 
of a doctrinal and a practical nature. How came they to 
spare this substantial and fundamental error, (if it be an 
error), not only without a word of correction and admonition, 
but even to do as the Jews did in respect to their Scriptures, 
i. e. to appeal to them as divine and authoritative, and thus 
to encourage and persuade all their disciples to follow their 
example ? 

For myself I see no satisfactory way in which these ques- 
tions can be answered. I must put them to the minds and 
consciences of all who profess to reverence Christianity as a 
religion from God, and I must leave them to make out an 
answer as best they may. 

But to the scruples of some minds about this or that par- 
ticular book — to doubts whether this or that was a part of the 
Canon sanctioned by Christ and the apostles — while, at the 
same time there is a ready deference to their authority in all 
cases where persons in this state can see it to be clearly 
shown, it would be unreasonable and disrespectful not to pay 
some ready and cheerful attention. Luther rejected the epis- 
tle of James and the Apocalypse from his canon, as we have 
seen above ; but Luther had no doubt of the divine authority 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 351 

of the New Testament as a whole, with this exception. He 
also admitted the Old Testament to the same rank. Now 
some other Christian, in the like spirit, may admit the Law 
and the Prophets and the Psalms ; but he might possibly re- 
ject Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles ; or at least he might 
deem it doubtful whether these books ought to be ranked 
with those. Of such an one I could easily say that I regard- 
ed him as a Christian, if his demeanor and his principles in 
other respects were such as become this character. If he 
had no dark spirit of skepticism as to the books of Scripture 
in general, or as to revelation in general, but accorded to it a 
sincere and hearty belief, then I could easily suppose, that 
his head was rather in fault than his heart, (if indeed he be 
in fault), and I should feel it my duty rather to labour to en- 
lighten his mind, than to reprove the state of his feelings. 

With such I suppose myself, at present, to be concerned ; 
and to them I must take the liberty to address a few conside- 
rations. 

That there are peculiar difficulties in respect to the books 
just named, I confess myself often to have felt, as well as 
they. It is difficult to account for it, how the book of Esther 
could be written even by a pious Jew who was uninspired, 
and yet this book relate events of a most surprising nature — 
deliverances of the most extraordinary kind — without one re- 
cognition of the hand of Providence here, or even once men- 
tioning the name of God. This is almost the only book in the 
Old Testament, which has completely escaped the charge by 
the Neolo gists of pragmatism on the part of the writer. And 
besides this, some of the circumstances related in it are cer- 
tainly peculiar. I have already mentioned them, (p. 171 seq.) 
but I must beg leave again to bring some of them into view, 
in the present connection. That 75,000 Persians should have 
been killed by the Jews in one day, apparently without any 
loss of life on their part, (Esth. 9: 16) ; that Haman should 
by proclamation diffused all over the kingdom, give them 
nearly a year's notice of the attack to be made upon them, 
(Esth. 3: 7 seq.) ; appears, I acknowledge, to present some 



352 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

historical paradoxes of no easy and ready solution. And in 
view of such matters, it would be natural for the doubters to 
whom I now refer, to put back the question upon me : How 
do you satisfy your own mind, that these things do not en- 
title us to reject the book as not canonical ? 

I feel bound to meet this question, and am ready to do it, 
so far as I may be able. 

Let me say then, first of all, that I do not regard the ques- 
tion respecting the canonical authority of this book, in the 
same light, in all respects, as I should the question whether 
the Pentateuch, the Psalms, or Isaiah, is canonical. The 
book of Esther teaches us no doctrine, in a direct way ; it 
gives us expressly no moral precepts. If it were struck out 
of the Canon to-clay, not a single doctrine or ethical principle 
would be changed, or be found lacking. It is in vain to say, 
that all the books of Scripture are alike, or are alike profita- 
ble to us, although they may all be inspired. The exegesis 
that can draw from 1 Chron. i — ix. — which is a register of 
names in a series of genealogies ; or from Ezra ii. and Neh. 
vii. (lists of those who returned from the captivity) ; as much 
instruction and edification as from the ten commandments, or 
from the history of the creation, or from many of the Psalms, 
or the Proverbs, or the prophecies, may be consistent with 
piety, and sometimes may even spring from excessive notions 
about the inspiration of the Bible and of the peculiarly holy 
nature of all its books. But intellect and reason never can 
find any satisfaction in such interpretation of the Scriptures ; 
if indeed it may be called interpretation, and not caricature. 
The Bible is a book that, we may take it for granted, was 
made to satisfy the intellect and enlightened reason, as well as 
devotional feeling. It is only when we misconceive of the 
design and object of any particular part of it, that it fails to 
satisfy the intellectual and rational demands of our nature. 

I set it down as certain, that inasmuch as the Jewish dis- 
pensation itself was one of types and shadows — a preparation 
for good things to come — a schoolmaster to lead us unto 
Christ — and inasmuch as all that was in its nature eremonial, 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 353 

ritual, temporary, appropriate only to the Jews as one and 
a peculiar nation, was to be superseded and abolished when 
Christ should come, so there might be parts, even many parts, 
of the Old Testament, which would cease to have any more 
immediate importance and value, whenever a Christian reve- 
lation, by which the will of God is perfectly made known, 
should supervene. It has supervened ; and that which once 
was perfectly adapted to the exigencies of the Jewish nation, 
and (although " a ministration of condemnation") was still glo- 
rious (2 Cor. 3: 9), " has now no glory by reason of the glory 
that excelleth" (v. 10), i. e. by reason of the Gospel. 

But be it so, that this glory is now comparatively like that 
of the stars after the sun has made his appearance ; yet in 
the twilight of Judaism the stars did shine, and the same stars 
still radiate light, although we may not easily discern it when 
we undertake to look for it by sun-light. There is not even 
a genealogy in the Old Testament, which did not once pos- 
sess importance. It settled all questions of inheritances ; it 
marked the bounds of property ; it designated the right to 
this or that privilege. There is not a narration in the Old 
Testament, which had not once its use. Examine the story 
of Er and Onan and of Judah's connection with his daughter- 
in-law, Tamar ; which surely is among the narrations that at 
first sight we should be inclined to spare, and even be prone 
to wonder, perhaps, how it came there. Yet in Matt. 1: 3, 
we find the fruit of that unlawful connection, Pharez and 
Zara, in the genealogical register of the evangelist. It is one 
link in counting the genealogy of Joseph from Abraham down- 
wards. So it is, also, as to the story of the Levite and his 
concubine in Judg. xix. The minute account given of the 
journey of this couple seems, at first, to be somewhat strange, 
and perhaps even revolting to our feelings, considering how 
we are taught by the gospel to regard concubinage. But 
still, the horrid murder committed upon the poor woman by 
forcing her to gratify the lusts of a multitude of men succes- 
sively, was the direct cause of a civil war, in which the Ben- 
jamites, who had committed the crime in question, became 
30* 



354 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

nearly extinct. And so I might go on with all the narra- 
tions of particular occurrences — the family histories — contain- 
ed in the Old Testament. A deep interest they once had to 
many. Admonition, too, may be drawn from most of them. 
It is with most or all of them, as Paul says it is with the an- 
cient history of the Israelites in the desert : " These things 
were our ensamples, and they Avere written for our admoni- 
tion, on whom the ends of the world have come ;" 1 Cor. 
10:11. 

Who now will venture to say, that the histories of the Old 
Testament are not of a different tenor from any other that 
were ever written by any of the heathen nations ? First of 
all, they are throughout of a religious cast. The Hebrews, 
whoever administers the government, are always under a the- 
ocracy. Providence guides, admonishes, rewards, and pun- 
ishes. God is the all and in all. Then secondly, the He- 
brew historians have no favourite heroes, about whom ro- 
mance throws its gorgeous vestments. The faults and follies 
of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses even, Saul, David, Solo- 
mon, Asa, Joash, Hezekiah, Josiah — and all whose history is 
minutely written, are not concealed. Here are no mythic 
and romantic personages — not any one even like the Cyrus 
of Xenophon. David and Solomon, at the very zenith 
of all that was splendid and commanding in royalty, in tri- 
umphs, in wisdom, in riches, in honours, are placed, at times, 
in attitudes that cover them with darkness and subject them 
to degradation. And is there nothing in all this practical ac- 
knowledgment of God's providence and retributive justice 
exhibited by the history of the Hebrews, nothing in the ex- 
posure of the crimes and vices of the most renowned kings 
and ethical philosophers, which is adapted to our instruction ? 
Well may we say with Paul : " They serve for our admoni- 
tion." 

When I read the Old Testament, then, and there meet with 
genealogies which have no concern with the Gentiles, and 
family histories that must have been particularly interesting 
only to family relatives ; when I peruse all the detail of the 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 355 

Levitical rites and ceremonies, and all the architectural details 
of the tabernacle and the temple ; or when I read predictions 
respecting Edom, and Moab, and the Ammonites, and the 
Philistines ; if I am tempted to ask, for what purpose were 
these things recorded in a book of public and permanent in- 
struction, I then ask myself how the Bible would have ap- 
peared to us, in regard to the matter of credibility, in case all 
such things had been omitted ? The only answer I can make 
is, that it would have assumed a mythic appearance — like a 
selection and dressing up of persons and things in the way of 
romance. If all actors are paragons of piety or of wickedness ; 
if all historical circumstances pertain only to choice events of a 
thrilling nature ; if all prediction be only Messianic or eulo- 
gistic of the church ; then would such a book wear the air of 
having been written by designing men, who meant to invest 
all personages and events with a costume splendid and at- 
tractive. As it is now, all looks like veritable reality. Hu- 
man nature is, and continues to be, human. In some cases 
great virtues are conspicuous, not unmingled with faults ; in 
others great vices, with occasional touches of alleviation by 
reason of social or patriotic qualities. In a word, the law- 
giver commands ; the historian relates circumstances interest- 
ing to himself, or to the times in which he lived, or useful to 
all, according to the nature of the case ; the prophet predicts 
things near, first and principally, then things far distant, such 
as pertained to the Messianic times ; the genealogist gives in 
his register; the Psalmist pours out the language of devotion 
in the sweetest and most engaging manner ; the lover of ethi- 
cal proverbs records his discriminating thoughts ; — and all this 
makes up a Hebrew Bible. There is something in it to 
interest all, to allure all, to do good to all ; at least this was so 
at the time when it was written. How can I doubt that all 
this is a reality ? No farce is acted here. There is not a 
fictitious personage upon the stage. All is reality; and such 
reality as early ages and the state of society would seem to 
have afforded. I become impressed more and more with the 
idea, that here is no imposture. If it were a description merely 



356 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

of the fortunate or blessed islands, of an Elysium, of the gar- 
den of the Hesperides, of some El Dorado ever hoped and 
wished for but never actually found — then my suspicions 
would be instinctively awakened. But now, as it actually is 
— how exceedingly different is the Old Testament from eve- 
rything of this kind ! 

If I allow then, as I readily do, that many parts of the Old 
Testament have now but a very small and subordinate inter- 
est to me, in a doctrinal or ethical respect, yet am I far from 
saying, that those facts are of no value, much less that they 
have never been valuable. I have pointed out their value. 
They aid in the authentication of the book. They lead me 
to the persuasion, that what it describes is a reality and not 
romance. They show how God's chosen people lived, and 
thought, and acted, in public and in private life. They pre- 
sent human nature as it has been and is, and not simply draw 
a picture of what it would be in a state of perfection. "Why 
may I not conclude, with the apostle Paul, that even now 
" all Scripture is profitable" ? 

But the Jewish dispensation has passed away, and all that 
was ritual, and ceremonial, and merely external, and tempo- 
rary, and peculiar to one nation only, has gone with it. All 
Old Test. Scripture which is exclusively occupied with things 
of this nature, has ceased to have any other interest for us, 
than that which I have stated above. In this light we may 
and ought to regard it. Its day has gone by. But it has had 
its day, and its usefulness, and its interest. Be it that I must 
now look upon it as I do upon the burning of incense, and 
the sacrifice of goats and bullocks, and the washings and puri- 
fications of old ; yet even all these had their use and signifi- 
cancy. Nay, are they not still symbolic, even to us, of the great 
atoning sacrifice, and of that purification of our minds which 
is required by the gospel ? 

In such a light would I place those parts of the Old Testa- 
ment toward which the scorn of some, the severe satire of 
others, and the wonder and perplexity of many, are directed. 
Enough that they once had their usefulness and their interest 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 357 

in the then existing church ; enough that they are still far 
from being altogether useless to us- I honour them as con- 
nected with a dispensation that was a type and shadow of the 
present. And while their light is now hardly seen, by reason 
of the sun which pours its flood of glory upon us, I call to 
mind, that when the ancient twilight was, they shone and 
twinkled in the sky, and gave sufficient light to guide the 
traveller on his way. 

But let us return to the book of Esther. "We have difficul- 
ties here ; but are they invincible ? 

The fact that the feast of Purim has come down to us, 
from time almost immemorial, (clearly it was an ancient cus- 
tom in the days of Philo and Josephus), proves as certainly 
that the main events related in the book of Esther happened, 
as the declaration of Independence and the celebration of the 
fourth of July prove that we separated from Great Britain, 
and became an independent nation. And if such events, in 
the main, as the book of Esther relates, did actually happen, 
they were of the deepest interest to the Jewish nation. The 
book of Esther was an essential document to explain the feast 
of Purim. Hence the Jews have always had it read, when 
that feast is kept. In this light, no one can well regard it as 
unimportant. 

As to most of the circumstances respecting Ahasuerus's ex- 
travagancies and follies, there will be nothing improbable in 
the story, to any one who will read the history of Mohammed 
Aga Khan, not long since on a throne in the same country. 

As to the fact, that Haman gave the Jews eleven months' 
warning of his assault, I have already discussed the subject in 
part, p. 172 seq. above. The thing looks improbable, at first. 
Yet when we read Esther iii, we see that Haman, like others 
of his time, was the slave of superstition, as well as cruelty. 
He must needs cast lots, in so great an affair, in order to hit 
upon the lucky day. In this way, an appeal to his gods must 
of course be made. " He who disposes of the lot" ordered 
it, that it should fall as late in the year as it could well be. 
Thus the Jews had time to prepare for the assault, or to re- 



358 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

move from the country, at their option. Haman, although 
doubtless dissatisfied with the falling out of the lot, could not 
venture to change a matter thus solemnly determined by an 
appeal to his gods. 

The number slain by the Jews remains — 75,000. Ex- 
traordinary it doubtless is, and it must still appear to be so. 
But it is not impossible. Improbable, I would concede, it 
might appear to be, at first view ; but, as I have stated be- 
fore, if one calls to mind, that the Persian court was under 
the control of Mordecai and Esther ; that the Jews were 
widely diffused at that time over the Persian empire ; that the 
Persian magistracy aided them ; and that a bitter hatred ex- 
isted between the Jews and many of their neighbours, the 
improbability of the thing is greatly diminished. And with 
respect to the allegation that no Jews were killed or wounded 
in this terrible rencontre, it is true that no mention is made 
of any harm on the part of the Jews. But I do not deem 
this circumstance at all conclusive to prove that none was 
done. Luke, so circumstantial in his narrative of Christ's in- 
fancy, says not a word of the massacre at Bethlehem ; nor 
does Josephus record it. The author of the book of Esther 
is wholly intent upon the victory and the deliverance of the 
Jews. The result of the encounter he relates, viz. the great 
loss and humiliation of Persian enemies. But how much it 
cost to achieve this victory, he does not relate. Had he been 
simply a historian professing to give a full account of mat- 
ters, he would have told this part of the story. But as he is 
only showing why the feast of Purim is kept as a day of joy 
and gladness, it was hardly to his purpose to tell the story of 
Jews who might have been wounded or destroyed on this 
occasion. It is the main result only which he throws into 
prominent notice. And here he leaves the matter. We can 
scarcely doubt that many Jews were killed or wounded. But 
why need we discredit the historian as to what he has com- 
municated, because he has not told this part of the story ? 

That the writer has said nothing of the providence of God, 
in the whole matter of deliverance from dangers so imminent, 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 359 

all, as I have acknowledged, will concede to be extraordinary, 
who are conversant with the Hebrew Scriptures. But it is 
almost as extraordinary, in case we suppose the writer to be 
uninspired, as it is if we regard him as inspired. It is with- 
out any parallel among the writings of the ancient Jews, 
whether sacred or not, Canticles only excepted. The confi- 
dence which Mordecai shows (Esth. 4: 14), that the Jews will 
experience " enlargement and deliverance" in some other 
way, if Esther should refuse her interposition, plainly shows, 
either that he had had some divine monition of this, or else 
that he relied on God's promises to the fathers respecting 
their posterity. But why the writer does not plainly and 
openly recognize the hand of God, in all that happens, is still 
a difficulty that we know not well how to remove. Was the 
author a foreigner, I mean a Jew born and dwelling in a fo- 
reign land ; then why, in case he wrote a book which he wish- 
ed his heathen neighbours to read, did he not bring the doc- 
trine of a special providence to view ? Was he a native and 
an inhabitant of Palestine, how could he so depart from the 
manner of all the historians of his country ? But as this dif- 
ficulty presses almost as hardly upon the book, when consid- 
ered as uninspired, as it does when we consider it as inspired, 
we do not seem to obtain any serious relief from our perplex- 
ity by denying the canonical authority of the book. There 
cannot be a moment's question, whether the author is a Jew, 
sympathizing in the highest degree with his nation, and fully 
believing in their title to precedence over heathen nations. 
These things lie upon the face of the whole narration. The 
impression of a special providence, which is made by the 
book, is a thing that admits of no doubt. What remains of 
difficulty is, a departure so marked from the usual style and 
manner of the Hebrew histories. We might conjecture va- 
rious reasons for this ; but what security could we give, that 
our conjectures would be well founded ? Better to let the 
matter remain where it is, better to confess the difficulty and 
not make any attempt to conceal it, than to indulge in mere 
idle conjectures. Why can we not rest a matter about which 



S60 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

we are in doubt, upon the authority of Christ and of the apos- 
tles, as to admitting the claims of the book before us to a 
place in the canon ? It was most surely in the canon which 
they have sanctioned. 

I cannot conclude my remarks on the book of Esther with- 
out saying, that nothing can be plainer than that, had the 
work been supposititious, the writer would beyond all doubt 
have been pragmatic in a more than usual degree, in order 
to deceive his readers by the guise of piety. The present 
character of the book proves beyond all reasonable suspicion, 
that it is not supposititious. 

We come next to Coheleth, or, as we name it after the 
fashion of the Greeks, Ecclesiastes. 

The ancient Jews doubted somewhat about admitting this 
book among those which might be indiscriminately read by 
all classes. Several of the later Jewish writers confess this, 
and variously state the reasons. In Vayyikra Rabba, § 28, 
f. 161, c. 2, it is said : " Our wise men were desirous to keep 
back (or conceal, ti&&| ) the book of Coheleth, because they 
found in it words which might lead to heresy." The Talmud 
speaks of some " who found contradictions in it," (rx Hi b pnni& 
itt, inclining this way and that). Other Jewish writers have 
objected, that " it teaches the eternity of the . world." But 
still, the party who admitted the book without scruple, have 
always been predominant, because, as the Talmud (Shabbath, 
fol. 30. c. 2) asserts, rmn *>*i£fl l&i&i ir&nn , i. e. the begin- 
ning and end of it are the words of the law. In other words, 
its main doctrine is accordant with the other Scriptures. On 
this basis the Jews have always remained, with the. exception 
of individuals skeptically inclined. Some such have I seen 
among them, who maintained that the book teaches the doc- 
trines of Epicurus. 

Not exactly this, but not very unlike it, is the prevailing 
opinion of Neologists. The book was written, they say, by 
a skeptic ; at least, by one who doubted or denied the immor- 
tality of the soul and a future retribution. By " the spirit's 
returning to God who gave it" (12: 7), they say, is meant 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 361 

only that God, who gave the natural breath or spirit, with- 
draws it and our death ensues. And all the declarations 
about retribution, they limit of course to the present worlds 

Of the justness and correctness of such an exegesis I am 
not persuaded. The book begins with the most emphatic- 
declarations concerning the vanity and brevity of human life,, 
and the unsatisfying nature of all earthly good. It exhibits 
the truth of this in the most vivid manner. It ends with the 
declaration, that the whole sum and conclusion of the matters- 
discussed is this, viz. "Fear God, and keep his commandments ,* 
for this is the whole of man ;" i. e. it is that for which man was- 
created, and is his all for which he lives, or ought to live ;■ 
Ecc. 12: 13, 14. This, which is the literal meaning of the 
Hebrew, is much stronger and more expressive than our com- 
mon English version : " This is the whole duty of man." But 
why should men fear God and keep his commandments? 
The writer gives us the reason, in the next and last verse of 
the book : " For God shall bring into judgment every work, 
with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be 
evil." What can this mean, if it do not mean a. future judg- 
ment ? The writer often avers, in the body of his work, that 
in the present world the distinctions between virtue and vice 
oftentimes are not made, or are not discernible by us ; and of 
course, that the retributions of virtue and vice are not made 
here. If not — where are they to be made ? I do not see 
but one answer to this question ; and that answer bids me to 
believe, that the writer had a pious intention in writing the 
book. 

Herder, Eichhorn, and others, have supposed the book to 
be dialogistic, and that one of the colloquists is a skeptic. 
In this way they solve the apparently skeptical sentiments 
found in it. Others have supposed that Koheleth (pbrip) 
means assembly, and that the book is written as a representa- 
tion of what passed in a company of ethical literati, in regard 
to the summum bonum of life. They compare it to the Arabic 
Mecamath, i. e. literary society. But with all this we may 
dispense. A dialogue cannot be carried through, without the 
31 



362 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCKTTPLES 

greatest incongruity, in many cases ; and the conflicting opin- 
ions of an assemblage of men is encumbered with the same 
difficulty. There is a more obvious and natural solution. 
The writer is one who had been through all stages of doubt 
in respect to the chief good, and the end of human life, and 
the doctrine of an overruling providence, and of retributive 
justice. He tells us in the most frank and impressive man- 
ner, the tenor and the drift of his cogitations on these various 
subjects, while he was in doubt. He tells us what he thought 
and said, in regard to them. In so doing, he has disclosed 
many a skeptical thought which passed through his mind. In 
all this, he has his eye upon those who are in that doubting 
state. He sympathizes with them, and lets himself down to 
their condition, so as to interest them and get their ear. 
Then he tells them in serious earnest of the vanity of human 
Kfe, of the impossibility of escaping retribution, and distinctly 
lets them know, that the sum of all his thoughts and reflec- 
tions, after passing through all the stages of doubt and per- 
plexity, is, that " the whole of man, [all in which he has any 
deep and lasting interest], is to fear God and keep Ms com- 
mandments ; and the ground of this conclusion is, that ' all 
their actions, good or evil, will assuredly be brought into 
judgment/ 

I need not stop here to say how much this book has been 
misinterpreted by those, who bad no true discernment of its 
real tenor and design. Perhaps no book in the Bible, if we 
except the Apocalypse, has suffered so much violence. All 
its skeptical declarations have been tortured, until they would 
confess thorough orthodoxy. Even the question which the 
doubter asks (3: 21), in order to impress the idea that we 
have no certain knowledge of the future, viz. " Who knowetk 
whether the spirit of a man goeth upward, and the spirit of a 
beast downward ?" (which assuredly must be the meaning of 
the original Hebrew) — this question has been turned into an 
argument to prove, that the spirit of a man does go upward ! 
So our translators seem to have understood it; but so did not 
Luther and many others. There is nothing, in short, which 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 363 

stands in the way of this spiritualizing and analogical exege- 
sis. It can make strenuous orthodoxy even out of Koheleth's 
doubts and skeptical musings. It can convert all the words 
of Job's occasional impatience and excitement, into meekness 
and unqualified submission. In its crucible all ores are melt- 
ed together, and seemingly sublimated so as to form but one 
purified and valuable substance. 

When all is done and said, however, the understanding and 
the reason remain to be satisfied. Nothing will stand that 
does not compose these to peace. # And why may we not be 
satisfied, that Koheleth has given usa picture of all the doubts 
and difficulties through which his mind had passed, and then 
subjoined the final result ? In these. times, we count those 
books very interesting and useful, in which writers give us 
faithful pictures of their former infidelity or skepticism, and 
then tell us that it was followed by an entire conviction of the 
truth and the power of the gospel. Two things are taught 
by this ; the one, that skepticism never satisfies and quiets 
the mind ; the other, that deliverance from it is the greatest 
of all good, as well as the highest duty. What forbade Ko- 
heleth to enter upon the like method of instruction ? There 
is, and always has been, among reflecting and inquiring men, 
a class of minds to which such a book is admirably adapted. 
It enters into all their sympathies and views ; it shows a fa- 
miliar acquaintance with them all, and ability to appreciate 
them in a feeling manner ; and finally it presents, in a strong 
and powerful light, the necessity and the duty of " fearing 
God and keeping his commandmenta" Had not this book 
been so much abused, as to its exegesis, by commentators and 
preachers who did not understand its plan, it might have been 
vastly more useful to the church. As matters now are, the 
violence done to it by interpreters revolts the candid and in- 
genuous mind, and turns many away from the book, because 
they are led to despair of obtaining anything satisfactory 
from it. I would hope that the time is not far distant, when 
we shall have some more enlightened views of this produc- 
tion laid before our religious pub he, than have yet been pre- 



364 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

sented. When this shall be done, I think the doubts of con- 
scientious inquirers will be removed, and they will cheerfully 
accord to Koheleth a place in the canon. Certain it is that 
the book had such a place, in the time of Christ and the apos- 
tles. Whenever it shall be naturally interpreted, and the 
plan of it fully understood, objections to it must cease, except 
on the part of those who reject all revelation. 

Last, but not least in point of difficulty, comes the book of 
Canticles, or, as the Hebrews name it, the Song of Songs, 
i. e. the Most Excellent Song. 

The history of what has befallen this book, and how it has 
been treated, would of itself occupy a volume of no inconsid- 
erable extent. With one class, it is a book of a symbolic and 
mysterious nature, full of real spirituality under the images 
of fervent conjugal love. With another it is altogether aph- 
rodisiac or amatory, like some of Horace's Odes, or Ana- 
creon, or Tibullus, or Ovid's Art of Love. Others choose a 
kind of middle path, supposing the design is to commend 
chaste conjugal love, and to hold up in an attractive light the 
advantages of monogamy in distinction from polygamy. Each 
of these classes have much to say, in defence of their respec- 
tive opinions. To canvass the subject at length, is out of 
question here. Only a few things that seem to be among the 
more important ones, can be discussed on the present occa- 
sion. 

Amatory nearly all the German Neologists suppose it to be. 
And considered as such, the book, I suspect, has had more 
than its equal share of attention, in the way of illustrating 
its language and of unfolding its supposed amatory scenes. 
Young adventurers are very apt to choose this book as their 
theme. Ewald, Umbreit, Doepke, and others, put their hands 
to it while young ; and they seem to have become rather shy 
of it since, as the book, on further consideration, seems not 
altogether so plain and obvious as they had once supposed. 
Those who regard it as a picture of chaste monogamic affection, 
are fewer, and are less able to make out, from the language 
of the book, the probability of such a meaning, than the pre- 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 365 

ceding class. The scenery is oriental. One must do vio- 
lence to his own mind to get away from the impression, that, 
if it is amatory at all, love is the subject as it exists in a Ha- 
rem, rather than in connection with a single wife. 

But, notwithstanding the confidence of not a few critics of 
late, I would ask : Is it, was it originally, designed to be re- 
garded as amatory ? 

Herder, who seems rather to have taken the lead among 
the recent critics in Germany that favour the amatory exe- 
gesis, has boldly avowed his sentiments respecting it. " The 
whole book," he says, " is love, love. It begins with a kiss, 
and ends with a tender sigh." And so Eichhorn and many 
others, who have followed on in this train. Even in ancient 
times, the Jews had some difficulty with the contents of Can- 
ticles. Origen (Prol. ad Cant.) and Jerome (Praef. ad 
Ezech.) inform us, that the Jews of their time withheld this 
book, and also the beginning and ending of Ezekiel, and the 
first part of Genesis, from persons under thirty years of age, 
lest they should abuse them. Theodoret mentions, that in 
his day there were some who denied its spiritual meaning. 
Theodorus of Mopsuesta was condemned by the second Sy- 
nod of Constantinople for saying, that " he was ashamed to 
read through the Canticles." In modern times, Clericus and 
Grotius avowed sentiments not unlike to those of Herder ; 
and now this kind of exegesis has become the reigning fash- 
ion. 

"Were one to come to the reading of this book, without any 
previous knowledge of the habitudes of the Jews in connect- 
ing the conjugal relation and conjugal affection with religious 
subjects, and without any knowledge of the extent to which 
this is carried in the Eastern countries, I should doubt 
whether he would ever suspect the poem before us of being a 
religious one. The name of God, or any reference to him, 
does not once occur in the whole book. From beginning to end 
is apparently the language of love ; and this without any ex- 
planation. Yet, after all, there is ground to doubt whether 
31* 



366 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

an interpretation that would convert the book into an Idyll, or 
an amatory Eclogue, is well grounded. 

(1) First of all — in what part of the Hebrew Bible can 
we find any composition of an analogous nature ? All — every 
Psalm, every piece of history, every part of prophecy — has a 
religious aspect, and (the book of Esther perhaps excepted) 
is filled with theocratic views of things. How came there 
iere to be such a solitary exception, so contrary to the ge- 
nius and nature of the whole Hebrew Bible ? It is passing 
strange, if real amatory Idylls are mingled with so much, all 
of which is of a serious and religious nature. If the author 
viewed his composition as being of an amatory nature, would 
he have sought a place for it among the sacred books ? And 
subsequent redactors or editors — would they have ranked it 
bere, in case they had regarded it in the same light ? I can 
scarcely deem this credible. So different was the reverence 
of the Jews for their Scriptures from any mere approbation 
of an amatory poem as such, that I must believe that the in- 
sertion of Canticles among the canonical books, was the re- 
sult of a full persuasion of its spiritual import. Had the case 
stood otherwise, why did they not introduce other secular 
works, as well as this, into the Canon ? Nor is this estimate 
of the book a figment of allegorical exegesis, introduced by 
Philo, and spread far and wide by Origen. The book had a 
place in the canon, at all events before the time of the Macca- 
bees ; so that the judgment of very ancient times, in the Jew- 
ish church, must have coincided with the judgment in later 
times, of a large portion of Christian interpreters. 

(2) It is now generally agreed, as Rosenmueller concedes 
(Proem, ad Comm. II.), that all the parts of this book are 
coherent and have a mutual relation, and that the same per- 
sonages are introduced and continued as speakers through the 
whole. The tone of the language, the style, the idiom, the 
special formulas of expression (such as adjuring by the does 
and the goats, etc.), are of the same tenor throughout. From 
the same hand and mind the whole composition doubtless 
came, whoever the author was. 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 367 

If now it is an amatory Eclogue, methinks there must be 
some plan, some progress, some denouement, that is not only 
appreciable by a critical reader, but discernible by an ordina- 
ry reader. Yet such a plan has never been developed, at 
least to any general satisfaction. One set of interpreters, 
(even such men as Velthusen, C. F. Ammon, Lindemann, 
Umbreit, Michaelis, Jacobi), have endeavoured to make out 
from the book, that it consists of amatory epistles addressed 
by Solomon to a shepherd's beautiful wife ; who retains, how- 
ever, her fidelity and remains true to her husband. But how 
is this any less than to say, that Solomon's amatory effusions, 
designed for seduction, are incorporated with the Holy Scrip- 
tures ? No refutation of this is needed. Others make the 
book a series of epithalamia on the marriage of Solomon with 
Pharaoh's daughter ; which, as it was an open and palpable 
transgression of the Law of Moses, does not much mend the 
matter. This seems to be kindred with the view which some 
recent critics (e. g. Lengerke) take of the 45th Psalm, viz., 
that it is an epithalamium on the marriage of Ahab with Je- 
zebel, or (e. g. De Wette) of Xerxes with some Jewess ! 
Ewald finds in the book a beautiful country girl, wandering 
in the pleasant fields of Engedi, seen, and forcibly carried off, 
by king Solomon, who attempts to seduce her by his amatory 
poetry. But what then are all the tender expressions of af- 
fection on the part of the woman, in 1: 9 — 11. 2: 10 — 15. 3: 
1 — 5, et. al. ? Bossuet found in the book a pastoral drama 
of seven acts. And these are not a tithe of the conceits 
which have been thrown out before the public, in regard to 
the work before us. 

How difficult it is to make out any plan of an Eclogue, 
these perpetual changes and variations of opinion may serve 
to show. But let us go, for a moment, to the book itself. At 
the outset we find the fair one in the harem of the king's pa- 
lace, exulting in the love of Solomon. Then (1: 7 seq.) we 
find her in the country tending flocks, and her lover a shep- 
herd. But this shepherd has a domicil, whose beams are 
cedar, and the rafters fir (1: 17). Next, we find the lover 



368 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

leaping among the mountains, and skipping among the hills ; 
2: 8. Then the fair one has lost her lover, and she goes 
forth to seek him by night, and brings him back to the house 
of her mother ; 3: 1 seq. Next Solomon is coming out of the 
wilderness, on a palankeen with sixty bearers ; 3: 6 seq. 
Next he is with his beloved on Lebanon ; 4: 8. Again she 
loses him, and goes out to seek him in the city, and is mal- 
treated by the watch ; 5: 1 seq. Then we find him in the 
garden of spices (6: 1 seq.), where she meets him, and they 
go to the Harem, where are threescore queens, and fourscore 
concubines, and virgins without number, all of whom she ex- 
cels, and they praise her beauty ; 6: 8 etc. Throughout the 
whole, there is a mutual interchange of the language of pas- 
sionate affection, rarely interrupted by any other speakers. 
A drama surely it is not, (although it has often been called 
so), unless a colloquy in which there is no change of speakers 
is a drama. Besides, there is no plot, no denouement, no 
crisis. The whole book is neither more nor less than the 
seeming exchange of expressions of endearment, with locali- 
ties and shifting of scenery adapted to call forth new and 
lively emotions. 

Is it the custom, now, of any nation to write amatory ec- 
logues in such a manner as this ? If literally interpreted, the 
whole book, while it has some beauties of description, is still 
nothing less than a mass of incongruities, without plan, and 
without the accomplishment of anything saving the outpour- 
ings of amorous desire. 

It was on this ground, that Rosenmueller abandoned the 
literal exegesis, although he was nearly alone in doing so 
among the Neologists ; Proem. III. I must confess for my- 
self, that the words of the celebrated Eabbi, Aben Ezra, in 
the Pref. to his Comm. on this book, appear to me very just 
and striking : 13 pttjn i-q*i2 t^-ii^n niffl ni^nb rib^bn tib^brt 
•pfXi £Hpin isro tids snss nb irn'bs'a b*ti ^t ?HBa -pi b$ dx 
: npbrra l^3> , i. e. " Profanation ! profanation ! to place the 
Canticles among amatory compositions ; but everything is said 
in the way of allegory. And unless the dignity of it [the book] 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 369 

had been great, it had not been incorporated with the holy 
books. Nor is there any controversy respecting it." He 
means to say, that this was not, and could not be, fairly called 
in question. And why is he not in the right ? " The uni- 
versal genius and method of the sacred books," says Rosen- 
mueller, " exclude the idea of admitting among them songs 
about the ordinary love of man and woman." 

But is there any example in the other Scriptures of alle- 
gorizing as to spiritual things, by employing such language 
and such conceptions as are to be found in Canticles ? I an- 
swer yes, without hesitation. This sort of imagery is fre- 
quent in the Old Testament, and in the New. Frequently 
are the Jews charged with " going a whoring after other 
gods;" Ex. 34: 15, 16. Lev. 20: 5, 6. Num. 15: 39. Deut. 
31: 16. 2 Chron. 21: 13. Ps. 73: 27. Ezek. 6: 9. Here the 
idea is, that they were affianced to the true God, and could 
not seek after idols without incurring the guilt of adultery. 
So God calls himself the husband of the Jews ; Isa. 54: 5. 
The nation of Israel is his bride ; Isa. 62: 4, 5. In Isa. 50: 
1, Jehovah asks where is the bill of divorcement on his part, 
that Israel have departed from him. Jeremiah speaks of the 
espousals of Israel, when young, in the wilderness. In Jer. 
3: 1 — 11, the prophet speaks of Israel as playing the harlot 
and committing adultery, in forsaking Jehovah. In Ezekiel, 
two long chapters (xvi. xxiii.) are occupied with carrying 
through the imagery drawn from such a connection. Hosea 
(i — iii.) recognizes the same principle, and carries out the 
imagery into much detail. These are merely specimens. 
Ps. xlv. presents the Mediator, the King of Zion, in the atti- 
tude of a husband to the church, and celebrates the union 
between the former and the latter. So in the New Testa- 
ment this imagery is very familiar ; See Matt. 9: 15. John 
3: 29. Eev. 19: 7. 21: 2. Specially consult 2 Cor. 11: 2, 
and Eph. 5: 22 — 32, where the apostle has gone into much 
particularity as to the duties of the marriage relation, and 
then avows, that he " speaks concerning Christ and the 
church." 



370 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

Such is the custom of the Hebrew writers and of the apos- 
tles. If now this imagery is so often employed, in all parts 
of the Bible, what forbids the idea, that there may be one 
short book in which it occupies an exclusive place, and is 
designed to symbolize the love that existed between God and 
his ancient people or the church, or rather, which ought to 
have existed on their part between God and his spiritually 
regenerated people, who have become one, (in a spiritual 
sense) with him, and are forever united to him ? It cannot 
be shown, a priori, that this is even improbable. 

Yet I would not wish to represent the case, in regard to 
Canticles, as different from what it really is. In other books 
these conjugal allusions and relations are only occasional and 
local, like other comparisons or similies introduced merely for 
the sake of illustration or of vivid representation ; in Canti- 
cles they are sole and exclusive — the all in all. Nor is there 
even a single reference to simple spiritual things expressly 
given in the whole book. The reader finds not a hint, that 
he is to interpret the book in this way. It is this which con- 
stitutes the main strength of those, who assert the book to be 
altogether amatory in its character. 

I should feel more pressed by this circumstance, did I not 
know, that extensive usage of a similar nature exists, and 
has for a long period existed, in the oriental countries, e. g. 
among the Persians, the Turks, the Arabians, and the Hin- 
doos. In the Musnavi of Jellaleddin, the poems of Jami, and 
above all in the odes of Hafiz, are many productions appar- 
ently of an amatory nature, which the Persians (there are 
some dissenters) regard as expressive of the intercourse of 
the soul with God. Hafiz, whose odes, as has been remark- 
ed, are sung to excite youth to pleasure, and chanted to re- 
mind the aged of the raptures of divine love, was a Sufi dev- 
otee of the most strenuous cast. Hence his poetry is regard- 
ed as expressive of the longings of the soul after God, and of 
the enjoyment that results from communion with him. The 
loves of Megnoun and Leilah have been celebrated in the 
Arabic, the Persian, and the Turkish languages ; yet with 



AS TO_A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 371 

the understanding, in all cases, that these personages are 
mere allegorical characters — i. e. mere personifications of re- 
ligious affection. 

Mr. Lane, in his admirable work on the Modern Egyptians, 
has given us an opportunity of presenting this subject a little 
more in exte?iso, than I have yet done. "While in Cairo he at- 
tended the religious exercises of the Dervishes of the highest 
order, on the birth day of the prophet (Mohammed). Of 
course the devotional exercises of that day were designed to 
be of the very highest cast. A company of the leading Der- 
vishes met, by moonlight, and after a variety of chants out of 
the Koran, they proceeded to the exercises thus described by 
Mr. Lane. 

" I shall here give a translation of one of these Mooioesti- 
shahhs, which are very numerous, as a specimen of their style, 
from a book containing a number of these poems, which I have 
purchased during the present Moo'lid, from a durwee'sh who 
presides at man) 7 zikrs. He pointed out the following poem as one 
of those most common at zikrs, and as one which was sung at the 
zikr which I have begun to describe. I translate it verse for verse ; 
and imitate the measure and system of rhyme of the original, with 
this difference only, that the first, third, and fifth lines of each 
stanza rhyme with each other in the original, but not in my trans- 
lation. 

With love my heart is troubled ; 

And mine eye-lid hind'reth sleep: 
My vitals are dissever'd ; 

While with streaming tears I weep. 
My union seems far distant : 

Will my love e'er meet mine eye ? 
Alas ! Did not estrangement 

Draw my tears, I would not sigh. 

By dreary nights I'm wasted : 

Absence makes my hope expire : 
My tears, like pearls, are dropping ; 

And my heart is wrapt in fire. 
Whose is like my condition ? 

Scarcely know I remedy. 
Alas ! Did not estrangement 

Draw my tears, I would not sigh. 



372 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

O turtle-dove ! acquaint me 

Wherefore thus dost thou lament ? 
Art thou so stung by absence ? 

Of thy wings depriv'd, and pent ? 
He saith, ' Our griefs are equal : 

Worn away with love, I lie.' 
Alas ! Did not estrangement 

Draw my tears, I would not sigh. 

O First and Everlasting ! 

Show thy favour yet to me ; 
Thy slave, Ahh'mad El-Bek'ree,* 

Hath no Lord excepting Thee. 
By Ta'-Ha',f the great Prophet ! 

Do thou not his wish deny. 
Alas ! Did not estrangement 

Draw my tears, I would not sigh. 

I must translate a few more lines, to show more strongly the 
similarity of these songs to that of Solomon: and lest it should 
be thought that I have varied the expressions, I shall not attempt 
to translate them into verse. In the same collection of poems 
sung at zikrs is one which begins with these lines. 

gazelle from among the gazelles of El-Yem'en ! 

1 am thy slave without cost : 

O thou small of age, and fresh of skin ! 

O thou who art scarce past the time of drinking milk ! 

In the first of these verses, we have a comparison exactly 
agreeing with that in the concluding verse of Solomon's Song ; 
for the word which, in our Bible, is translated a 'roe,' is used 
in Arabic as synonymous with ghaza'l (or a gazelle); and the 
mountains of El-Yem'en are ' the mountains of spices.' — This 
poem ends with the following lines. 

The phantom of thy form visited me in my slumber: 

I said, ' O phantom of slumber ! who sent thee ?' 

He said, ' He sent me whom thou knowest ; 

He whose love occupies thee.' 

The beloved of my heart visited me in the darkness of night : 

* The author of the poem. The singer sometimes puts his own name 
in the place of this. 

t Ta'-Ha' (as I have mentioned on a former occasion) is a name of 
the Arabian Prophet. 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 373 

I stood, to show him honour, until he sat down. 

I said, ' O thou my petition, and all my desire ! 

Hast thou come at midnight, and not feared the watchmen ?' 

He said to me, ' I feared ; but, however, love 

Had taken from me my soul and my breath.' 

Compare the above with the second and five following verses 
of the fifth chapter of Solomon's Song. — Finding that songs of 
this description are extremely numerous, and almost the only 
poems sung at zikrs ; that they are composed for this purpose, 
and intended only to have a spiritual sense (though certainly not 
understood in such a sense by the generality of the vulgar*) ; I 
cannot entertain any doubt as to the design of Solomon's Song. 
The specimens which I have just given of the religious love- 
songs of the Moos'lims have not been selected in preference to 
others as most agreeing with that of Solomon ; but as being in 
frequent use ; and the former of the two, as having been sung at 
the zikr which I have begun to describe." 

Such then is the custom of the Arabians, in their most sub- 
limated devotions, and on occasions the most solemn. Who 
will deny that Mr. Lane has some good reason for saying, as 
he does, that " he cannot entertain any doubt of Solomon's 
Song." 

Was it impossible, now, for the neighbours of the Arabians 
to have a similar custom, in their flights of highest devotion? 
From some of the deepest affections of our nature they drew 
their colouring, in order to pourtray the longings and the en- 
joyments of the soul. It will be allowed, on all hands, that 
no material for colouring could be of a more vivid nature. 
The moral tendency is the only draw-back in regard to the 
whole matter. On this I must say a few words more, and 
then leave the matter to the reader. 

For one I feel obliged to say, that the state of feeling in 
our western world, which has been consequent on elevating 
the rank of women in society, and giving them a place among 
assemblages either for instruction or entertainment, stands in 

* As a proof of this, I may mention, that, since the above was written, 
I have found the last six of the lines here translated, with some slight 
alterations, inserted as a common love-song in a portion of the Thousand 
and One lights, printed at Calcutta (Vol. I. p. 425). 
32 



374 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

some measure opposed to the tenor of such a book as Canti- 
cles. As a book of amatory odes we might praise and ad- 
mire it ; for, in the original, it is much more delicate than our 
English version represents it to be. But we shrink instinc- 
tively from connecting amatory ideas and feelings with a de- 
votional frame of mind. "We find the temptation to dwell on 
the carnal imagery sometimes, perhaps often, leading us away 
from pure and spiritual devotion. This I believe to be the 
general — the all but universal feeling among us. I do not, I 
cannot disapprove of this feeling. I commend it. It shows 
what progress Christianity has made, in inspiring the mind 
with quick and powerful sensitiveness, in regard to a matter 
which is always fraught with danger, and particularly to the 
young. Where promiscuous assemblage of the two sexes is 
so frequent as it is among us, nothing but a quick and high 
sense of delicacy could prevent the multiplied evils that might 
easily grow out of it. Our state of manners, our usages in 
regard to female privileges and companionship, render that 
kind of cautious feeling on the subject of amatory descriptions 
and allusions, necessary to us as a safeguard. 

I take it for granted, that such a book as the Canticles pre- 
supposes a state of society which is far from the highest 
Christian refinement of manners. In the New Testament, 
such a book, i. e. one exclusively of such a tenor, would be an 
utter stranger. It could hardly be recognized as one of this 
collection. But when all this is said and conceded, it does 
not follow, that such a book as Canticles might not have 
found a place in the ancient canon. Different — very different 
— was the state of the Jews in ancient times. Language that 
we could not now tolerate, above all could not tolerate in any 
company composed of both sexes, gave no offence to delicacy 
in the times of general simplicity and rude cultivation. It 
might be employed, then, much more unexceptionably among 
the ancient Hebrews, than it can be among us. Certain it is, 
that the Old Test. Scriptures abundantly illustrate this posi- 
tion, by the not unfrequent expressions found in them, which 
we feel obliged to mollify in translating, but which, when first 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 375 

uttered, needed no such process. Everything almost of this 
nature depends on the state and habitudes of a nation or peo- 
ple. Some things there are, which must always be indecent, 
at all times, and among all nations. But other things, e. g. 
phraseology, manner of dress, and all that may be classed un- 
der the adiayooa of morals, is mutable, and may be proper or 
improper pro re nata. Nor is this peculiar to the Old Testa- 
ment. In 1 Cor. 11: 13 seq., Paul says that it is a shame for 
a man to wear long hair ; that a woman must not pray un- 
veiled in public assemblies ; that women must wear their hair 
long in the way of ornament and covering ; and the like. Is 
so much of this, now, as pertains merely to costume, or man- 
ner of wearing the hair, matter of perpetual obligation to all 
churches ? Certainly not. And why ? Because the things 
commanded or forbidden are among the ddidcpoga, i. e. things 
in themselves neither good nor evil, but still things that may 
be indecorous, if practised under certain circumstances and 
among a people of such usages as the Greeks. In public no 
woman could decently appear unveiled ; a usage widely ex- 
tant even now in Asia. For men to wear long hair, was an 
indication among the Greeks of an effeminate, imbecile char- 
acter, who courted adornment like a female, and was probably 
one of the na&r/.oi. But in our country, the state of man- 
ners and customs is so different, that so far as decency of ap- 
pearance is concerned, the matters of which the apostle here 
treats are things indifferent. In respect, however, to the 
public praying of females, the apostle in the same epistle, be- 
comes so impressed with the subject, when he comes to treat 
of the exercise of the gift of speaking with tongues in public, 
that he positively and plainly forbids the whole thing. " Let 
your women keep silence in the churches ; for it is not per- 
mitted them to speak ;" 1 Cor. 14: 34. And so again in 
1 Tim. 2: 11, 12, " Let the women learn silence with all sub- 
jection ; but I suffer not a woman to teach [i. e. in public, or 
to preach], nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in 
silence." Some have thought that these two passages are 
opposed or contradictory to the preceding. I do not under- 



376 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

stand them so. In the first passage, Paul is merely correct- 
ing abuses ; and he so limits the public speaking of women, 
that, if done at all, it should be done with entire decorum. 
In the last two, he gives his opinion what ought to be and 
should be the established principle of the church, in regard to 
the matter of public female addresses. Of course, he must be 
understood as speaking in reference to mixed assemblies. 

There are several things to be learned from cases of such 
a nature as this. First of all, that even Christianity, which 
is always Avatchful over the to xalov and to ngmov, may for- 
bid things in certain circumstances, which are matters of per- 
fect indifference in others. The like was the eating of meats 
that had been presented in the temple of idols ; the circum- 
cision of Christians standing in a peculiar relation to the Jews, 
e. g. of Timothy, etc. So there may be, and there are, some 
things which are local and temporary in the Gospel, as well 
as in the Law. Secondly, that which is not malum in se may 
be tolerated for a while, and regulated, even in cases where, 
in the sequel, it may be judged necessary or best entirely to 
forbid it. Such was the temporary toleration of the public 
addresses or prayers of women at Corinth, in promiscuous as- 
semblies. The precept forbidding this, is of course not to be 
regarded as extending to exercises of this nature in assem- 
blies exclusively female ; but that it is designed to be a gen- 
eral and permanent precept, in regard to mixed assemblies, 
would seem to be plain from the reasoning of Paul when giv- 
ing his grounds for such a precept ; see 1 Tim. 2: 13 seq. 
The reasoning in this case, is founded on a permanent state 
of things. 

If now we find in the New Testament things about which 
certain directions are given, but which are plainly and evi- 
dently obligatory no longer than while certain circumstances 
exist ; why may there not be some books in the Old Testa- 
ment, once well adapted to the state of the Jews and useful 
to them, but which have now become obsolete by reason of 
the great changes which Christianity has wrought ? All con- 
cede, that the Levitical rites and ceremonies are done away ; 



AS TO A PART OP THE OLD TESTAMENT. 377 

that circumcision, and the passover, and sacrifices and obla- 
tions of every kind, are no longer obligatory. Of course all 
that part of the Old Testament which prescribes and regu- 
lates these things, is no longer a matter of practical moment 
to us, but only a portion of the history of God's former deal- 
ings with bis church "We have no hesitation in adopting all 
this ; specially after reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 
principal object of which is to show, that a new and better 
covenant than the old has been introduced, and one estab- 
lished on better promises and of a more liberal nature. But 
when we have gone thus far, is there any obstacle in the way 
of taking one more step ? May there not have been some 
books, neither ritual nor politico-ecclesiastical, written for the 
time being and the circumstances then existing, and which 
were wisely adapted to do good in this state of things — which 
books, by the introduction of a better aud more perfect sys- 
tem of religion, have become in a good measure obsolete, or no 
longer useful to us, because our circumstances, habits, man- 
ners, and modes of thinking, are so different from those of the 
Jews in their partially civilized state ? I do not see how this 
question can be confidently answered in the negative. 

Why may it not be, then, that the Canticles were written 
for Jewish pietists of a contemplative order, and somewhat of 
the temperament of the Essenes, i. e. able to control and 
keep in a state of entire subjection their animal passions ? 
There were doubtless some Baxters and Thomas a Kempises 
among the Hebrews ; we know that there were such men as 
could write the most devotional Psalms. Might it not have 
been customary among the Hebrews, so to speak of the mar- 
riage relation and its endearments, as not to excite in them 
the same feeling that it is apt to do among us, or at least not 
the same in degree ? I must take it for granted that such 
was the case, when I call to mind how often Jehovah employs 
language of this kind, when addressing the Israelites. Nay 
more, I find the same thing, to some extent, even in the New 
Testament, on the part of Jesus and his apostles. It is clear 
that no indecency is intended ; and equally clear, as it seems 
32* 



378 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

to me, that no improper feelings were excited by the lan- 
guage in question, in the minds of those who were originally 
addressed. But that time, those circumstances, that state of 
manners, and those usages, all of which contributed to render 
Imagery of the kind in question harmless, and even useful — 
have all passed away. Orientals may read Hafiz's Odes, and 
the Loves of Megnoun and Leilah, or may sing as the Der- 
vishes did when Mr. Lane heard them, and through the force 
of education appropriate to themselves religious nourishment 
from these elements. Why then should they be forbidden to 
them? "Why might not the Jewish sacred writers provide 
for that class of devotees, who could be profited by this style 
of writing? The thing is neither impossible nor improbable. 
Everything in this matter depends on education and custom. 
Is not the Bible so written as to offer something attractive to 
all classes of readers, to all kinds of taste that are not in them- 
selves vicious ? If so, why may not provision have been 
made to allure the class of the contemplative, the devotees in 
the East, and to attract the attention of even the Sufi and the 
Dervish ? 

Thus much, I think, may fairly be said in regard to the ex- 
istence and canonical rank of such a work as the Canticles. 
But now as to the Occidentals — the western world who have 
been christianized, and brought to a totally different state of 
manners. Mixed society in the East, is a thing that time out 
of mind has never been allowed and practised. Hence their 
freedom of language, in speaking of delicate matters. The 
restraints of the female sex were not felt, of course. Lan- 
guage assumed a fuller tone without offence, where only one 
sex was present. But among us, where both are present, 
(a matter which Christianity has brought about, unspeakably 
to the advantage of both sexes), we cannot read or sing the 
Canticles with the same freedom as a company of monks or 
nuns could do. It is well. For one, I rejoice in this triumph 
of Christianity in prohibiting everything, that may even seem 
to the unlearned or to the passionate as adapted to excite un- 
hallowed feelings. Innocent in themselves, with all the need- 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 379 

ful restraints and decorous limitations, some of these feelings 
may in themselves be. But we need no excitement, addi- 
tional to what by nature we possess, to rouse them. It is 
not best to tamper with even a dubious matter. I have often 
heard it said by the friends of Pres. Edwards, that he was 
peculiarly fond of the book of Canticles, and read and medi- 
tated much upon it. His character for piety was such, as 
entirely forbids the supposition that he was secretly nourish- 
ing his animal passions by this. Nay, I must believe that if 
he had found such to be the effect of his reading Canticles, 
he would at once have desisted. His example shows, then, 
what is possible, and what may be achieved by purified and 
exalted feeling. But as such men are not very rife in these 
days, and are not likely to be so, it is better for those who 
have not attained an elevated state of piety like his, to abstain, 
for the most part, from the book before us. The reason lies 
in our excitability, in consequence of our manners and our 
education. There is the same reason, for substance, why we 
should desist from this book, as there is why we should cease 
to hold obligatory the local and temporal in the New Testa- 
ment. The book has had its day. I venture to believe, that 
many rejoiced in it and were made glad by it. But it was 
only twilight when it was written ; it is now broad daylight. 
We who know and feel this, need not go back to the twilight, 
in order that we may see. 

Still, there is yet an oriental world, and one that is to be 
converted to Christianity. Let the book stand for those, who 
have been trained to read Hafiz, and Megnoun and Leilah, 
and to sing the odes of the Dervishes, with nothing but a 
spiritualized state of feeling, enjoy the pleasure of finding 
such a book in the canon of Scripture. For us, men of occi- 
dental taste and habits, and of only ordinary growth in piety, 
(to say the best we well can), — for us, (excepting the few 
that have reached the lofty heights of a Baxter or an Ed- 
wards), who have a task difficult enough to keep our passions 
in due subjection even when we shun all the temptation and 
excitements that we can — it is the safer and better course, to 



380 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES 

place the Canticles, as the Jews did, among the b^ttsa or 
books withdrawn from ordinary use, and betake ourselves 
rather to the Psalms, and the Proverbs, and the Prophets, 
and the New Testament. Canticles, as a means of devotion 
— doctrinal it surely is not — is superseded for us by better 
means. This is reason enough, independently of the danger 
of being excited in an undue way, to prefer other parts of 
the Scripture. And all this brings no just reproach on Can- 
ticles, any more than the argument of Paul in his epistle to 
the Hebrews, against all the rites and forms of the old dis- 
pensation, brings reproach on them while they lasted. 

I am aware, that those Christians (and some such there 
are) who, because all the Bible was written by inspiration, 
hold it to be all alike valuable to us and obligatory upon us, 
and who read it in course, even through and through, in their 
families, (and perhaps in the pulpit), with the best of inten- 
tions, will probably not receive these remarks with much ap- 
probation. Still, while I doubt not that they may mean right, 
I am fully persuaded that their practice is altogether wrong, 
or at least injudicious. What have we to do, in the way of 
Christian edification, with the details of building the taberna- 
cle and temple ; with the genealogies and lists of returning 
exiles ; with all the prescriptions about offerings, libations, 
purifications, priests, etc., in the Levitical law ; and with 
many a piece of family or individual history which developes 
nothing special of a religious nature ? Even the prophecies 
against Egypt, Moab, Eclom, Philistia, Tyre, Babylon, and 
Assyria, have but a subordinate interest for us. Why occupy 
our public or our family devotions with such parts of the O. 
Test. Scriptures ? What moral and practical ideas would a 
family or a church obtain, from having Ezek. xl — xlviii. 
read in course ? General usage has decided all these ques- 
tions, among the more intelligent Christians, and decided 
them rightly. I do not wish the decision to be revoked. 

Nor is all this saying one word against the Canticles, or 
the other parts of Scripture to which reference has been 
made. I have already pointed out what use is to be made of 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 381 

such parts of Scripture, and what estimate is to be put upon 
them. I need not repeat here what I have already said. 
The whole thing lies in a very small compass. There was 
an ancient preparatory dispensation — a shadow of good things 
to come — many things were necessary to arrange and give it 
a successful trial ; that dispensation has passed away, and 
has now comparatively " no glory by reason of the glory that 
excelleth ;" and along with it has passed away all such parts 
of the Old Testament as were local and temporary — all which 
belonged merely to Judaism. Why can we not receive the 
simple truth, that the hand of God was in all these move- 
ments, and that the same hand has now introduced us to a 
much higher and better state, furnished us with better means 
of understanding truth, and of promoting our own personal 
piety ? 

Considerations such as these, and like to these, I would 
most heartily commend to those who are halting and doubting 
in regard to the book of Canticles. I do not perceive the 
need of such a state of mind. Certain it is, that the Canti- 
cles were a part of the canon sanctioned by Christ and the 
apostles. Nothing as matter of fact in ancient criticism is 
more certain. It is of no use to deny this, or to make efforts 
to evade it. Better is it to meet it directly, and canvass the 
whole matter with an open and liberal and candid mind. If 
the Orientals still want such a book, let them use it, as the 
ancient Jews did. If the Occidentals can do better, on the 
whole, without making the use of it public and common, let 
them have the liberty of the Gospel. Our preachers, in gen- 
eral, have long since ceased to make it a text-book ; families 
do not generally read it in their devotions ; and if the remarks 
which I have made above are well-founded, they are to be 
commended rather than blamed for this. The book has had 
its day in the East, or (if you insist upon it) is to have it 
there ; in the West, it seems to me that it must continue to 
hold much the same place which general practice has as- 
signed to it. 

I cannot conclude these remarks without adding, as I have 



382 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS SCRtJPLES 

already hinted, that the perusal of. the original makes much 
less impression on me of an exceptionable kind, than the pe- 
rusal of our version. It is far more delicate, at least to my 
apprehension. It were easy to exhibit particulars, which 
would justify this statement. But I refrain because of the 
nature of the case. That there are many passages in this 
pastoral, if any must needs so call it, which are highly beau- 
tiful and tender and delicate, is quite certain. A heathen 
poet who had sung carnal love in like manner, would have 
doubtless been immortal among the Cythereans. But other 
passages, which are minutely descriptive of the person of the 
bride, oblige us to look well to the mastery of our feelings. 
It needs something of the tone of mind which a Sufi or a 
Dervish attains to by long and exclusive spiritualizing and 
meditation, or (which is much better) the elevation above all 
that is carnal of an Edwards or a Baxter or an Owen, in or- 
der to make any spiritual gain by the exercise. Something 
might be done to give the book a better dress than it has in 
our English version ; but the general state of the case will re- 
main as developed above. While I would say, with Aben 
Ezra, fb'b'n rib^n to all profane rejection of the book, I think 
we may say with Virgil, on a somewhat different occasion : 
Procul, O procul, este prof an i ! 

Is it not strange that the mere Elenchus Interpretum or 
list of commentators on this book, occupies more than twenty 
octavo pages in Bosenmueller's Commentary ? And I pre- 
sume he has not recorded anything like the one half of them. 
Jews, Christian fathers, Romanists, and Protestants, have all 
rushed upon this little book, by virtue, as it would seem, of 
some mysterious attraction. Yet the mystery does not pro- 
bably lie very deep. Origen, as we might expect from his 
allegorical inclinations, wrote ten volumes of Comm. on Can- 
ticles. " As in other works of his," says Jerome, " he has 
surpassed all other expositors, in this he has outdone himself." 
" Here," says he on another occasion respecting Origen in 
this work, " here he sails cum pleno velo." We have also 
among these expositors an Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, The- 



AS TO A PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 383 

odoret. Cassiodorus, and many other others. Among the 
Romanists there is no end of expositors. Poor monks ! This 
book was converted into nectar and ambrosia to refresh and 
strengthen them in their mental revellings, and to compensate 
in some measure for the loss of realities. So they rushed by 
troops to the prey. Germans (as we should expect), French- 
men not a few (as we should spontaneously conjecture), even 
Englishmen, although with some good degree of sobriety in 
most cases, and last of all the very Dutchmen, have revelled 
in this book ; for what else shall I say of the matter of many of 
the commentaries that have been produced ? There are, not 
improbably, a class of occasional readers of the Bible, who 
would sooner give up any book belonging to it than this. 
Their real reasons for this preference, they would not per- 
haps be fond of proclaiming. 

Christianity, then, with that state of manners and society 
which it has introduced, has changed our relation to many 
things belonging to the Old Testament dispensation. All 
concede this, as to rites and forms and peculiarities of the 
Levitical worship and purifications. We have no temple at 
Jerusalem ; no assemblages there to kill the passover, to cele- 
brate sacred feasts, and to hear the Law once in seven years. 
We have it every Sabbath, we may read it every day. It 
costs but a pittance to put it in our possession — the fruit of a 
single day's labour, at most, will accomplish this, for the poorer 
classes ; while a pious Jew, to obtain the same privileges, must 
almost have expended a handsome little fortune. The conse- 
quence of all this is, a state of things and of manners exceeding- 
ly different from that of ancient times. It does not follow, that 
all which was permissible, or available, or useful then, is of 
course so now. Even some books, which are not conversant 
with Hebrew rites and forms, are not of course profitable to 
us, as they were, or at any rate might have been, to them. 
Why should we lay stress on these, and urge them into pre- 
sent usage, when little or no moral gain, comparatively, is to 
be made from them ? I hesitate not for a moment to say, 
that we should not. Let them be — specially let the Can- 



384 § 21. CONSCIENTIOUS scruples' 

tides be — for Oriental Christians, brought up very diffe- 
rently from us. I doubt not that many of them might find 
spiritual food, instead of poison, in them. At all events, we 
may consent to let a book stand where Christ and his apos- 
tles found it and left it, and against which they have nowhere 
testified, but, on the contrary sanctioned it in connection with 
other Old Testament books. It is safe for the doubting and 
wavering at least to let it alone. If they find that they cannot 
safely read it, they are bound to let it alone ; at least I should 
not hesitate in my own case. 

All things considered, we may settle down, as it seems to 
me, in the conclusion, that the Canticles is a book rather to 
be regarded in the light of a local one, and adapted to partial 
usage, than as a book now, under the full light of the gospel, 
specially adapted to our use. It had its day. That its use 
was religious, I cannot doubt, from the company in which it 
is found, and the ordeal through which it has passed among 
the founders of Christianity. It may have still another day 
of usefulness, among the Asiatics. Let us not disown it, or 
set it aside. But persons of timid consciences, who have an 
idea, that, since all parts of Scripture are inspired, they all 
must of course be equally useful, may be set free from this 
bondage. Are we to hold that the sketches of tabernacle and 
temple buildings, of ritual ordinances and customs, and cata- 
logues of names and places, are as edifying as the Epistle to 
the Romans, or the Gospels, or the Psalms ? If we answer 
in the negative, then I would ask, whether, in other compo- 
sitions, once adapted to the state of things then existing, there 
may not be a lack of former usefulness, since the light of the 
Gospel has become fully diffused ? As I have once said, I 
would say again : May not a star, that once shone brightly 
in the dim twilight, become no longer visible when the sun is 
shining in his strength? But why should we deny that it 
has once shone, and that it is still a star ? 

I have not undertaken to decide, exactly of what tenor the 
spiritual exegesis of Canticles should be. It is a question of 
no small difficulty. Does it refer to the church as a body ? 



§ 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 385 

Or is it to be applied to the converse of the soul with God, 
and the delight of communing with him ? If oriental analogy 
may speak, on this occasion, it would lift up its voice in favour 
of the latter. This I also prefer, because I can hardly re- 
gard the book of Canticles in the light of a series of predic- 
tions respecting a future Christian church. As far as what 
pertains to individuals, who are pious, is common to the 
church, whether Jewish or Christian, so far Canticles may be 
applied to the characteristics of the church, ancient or mod- 
ern. But to me it seems better and firmer ground, to regard 
the Canticles as expressing the warm and earnest desire of 
the soul after God, in language borrowed from that which 
characterizes chaste affection between the sexes. But this 
is not the place to vindicate an opinion of this nature. 

§ 22. Use of the Old Testament under the Gospel Dispensation. 

The most difficult and delicate part of my task remains. 
In many respects this is also the most important ; for it is the 
practiced residt of all which has been hitherto laid before the 
reader and defended. 

Where shed I a Christian teacher or reader draw the line 
between what is abrogated in the Old Testament, by the 
coming of Christ and by the revelation of his will in the New 
Testeanent, and that ivhich remains in full force, and to 
which appeal may be made as being at the present time of di- 
vine authority and obligedion ? 

If by this question is meant, a requisition to draw a boun- 
dary line between the two, which is always practically palpa- 
ble, and always visible and plain even to the weakest eye, no 
intelligent and considerate man would undertake the task. 
The New Testament has passed sentence of abrogation on 
no specific book, or part of a book, as such, which is contain- 
ed in the Old Testament. To its decision, viewed as desig- 
nating this or that particular portion or book of the Old Tes- 
tament as no longer having authority to decide matters per- 
taining to religion for us, we cannot appeal. All which it 
33 



386 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

has done is to lay down and establish general principles, by 
the aid of which we must decide what still remains obligatory, 
and what is virtually repealed. 

The ultimate appeal, then, is to understanding and reason ; 
not in order to QstzhMsh-the, principles in question, for Christ and 
his apostles have established them, but to make a discrimina- 
ting and judicious use of these principles, in determining what 
still remains in full force. So does the Bible in respect to its 
interpretation. It narrates, it commands, it threatens, it promi- 
ses, it encourages, it consoles, it holds out views of a future state 
of reward and punishment ; but the language in which all this 
is done, is addressed to men in the usual way, and they are 
expected to give it a rational interpretation. The Bible 
teaches no system of hermeneutics ; it instructs no one in the 
principles of rhetoric ; it never descants on the use of figura- 
tive language ; it never lays down any theory of exegesis 
which may serve as a certain guide to those who become ac- 
quainted with it. All these are presupposed to be under- 
stood or felt by the readers ; and then it is expected of them, 
that by their discrimination and judgment, they should give a 
sound interpretation. 

Exactly like to this is the case before us. The new Dispen- 
sation is fully set forth in the New Testament. Its depart- 
ures from the peculiarities of the Jewish religion, its true 
spiritual nature, its universality, its freedom from all pomp 
and rites and ceremonies, and (if the word had not been 
abused I might say, in a good sense), its cosmopolitism, stand 
in high relief upon the portico of the new temple which has 
been erected. On the very foundation stones of this temple 
are inscribed, in letters so plain that he who runneth may 
read : God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, 
must worship him in spirit and in Truth. On the next 
tier of foundation stones stands inscribed, in letters equally 
plain and prominent : The Father seeketh such wor- 
shippers. On the third stands the inscription : The hour 

IS COME WHEN NEITHER ON THE MOUNTAIN OP S AM ARIA, 

nor or Jerusalem, are men required to worship. 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 387 

This last inscription contains the germ of all that I have or 
wish to say. The two former inscriptions were virtually en- 
graved of old on the Jewish temple. But they were in the 
Sanctum Sanctorum, and common worshippers rather heard 
indistinctly of them, than saw them. On the temple of the 
new Jerusalem they stand, as I have said, in relief so high, 
and prominent, that no worshipper who approaches can fail to 
see them, unless he shuts his eyes. 

It is the third inscription which we are now called to read 
and interpret. Let us address ourselves to this grave and 
interesting task, with becoming seriousness and candour. 

All social religion, under the Mosaic code, centered in the 
temple at Jerusalem and its ordinances. The claims of the 
Samaritans to make their mountain the central point of all 
religious rites and services, was settled by the Saviour him- 
self, in his conversation with the Samaritan woman : "Ye wor- 
ship ye know not what ... for salvation is of the Jews." We 
may therefore dismiss mount Gerizim, and all its pretended 
services, from any further consideration. 

To declare that men should no longer worship the Father 
at Jerusalem, is to declare that the whole system of Jewish 
social worship, with all its pomp, its rites and ceremonies, its 
sacrifices and oblations, is abrogated. "What made the Jew- 
ish religion peculiar and appropriate only to one nation, was 
its locality and its externals. From its very nature the Jew- 
ish religion could belong only to one nation. Three times in 
each year were all the males of the nation to appear before 
God in Jerusalem. Once in seven years the whole popula- 
tion, men, women, and children, were to go up thither to bear 
the Law. How could Judaism be a practicable religion, ex- 
cept to a small nation within very circumscribed limits ? It 
was plainly impossible. 

This solves the great problem contained in the question : 
"Why was not the Jewish religion aggressive ? "Why did not 
the pious part of the Hebrew community send missionaries to 
the heathen, and endeavour to convert them ? Jonah once 



388 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

preached abroad with, signal success ; why did not the Jewish 
prophets repeat the experiment ? 

Without attempting to assign all the reasons which they 
had for abstaining from attempts of this nature, I merely re- 
mark, that the prophets could not fail of seeing, that an ex- 
tensive prevalence of the Jewish religion would involve im- 
possibilities. How could the Hindoos and the Chinese re- 
pair thrice in a year to Jerusalem ? How could the popula- 
tion of a world assemble in one small city, which never could 
have contained much over one hundred thousand inhabitants, 
if indeed so many can be supposed ? The prophets knew, 
by circumstances such as these, that God did not design Ju- 
daism for a universal religion. Consequently they engaged 
in no foreign missionary enterprises, and never exhibited 
any special zeal for the conversion of the heathen. 

We come then to the great question, which is the nucleus 
of the whole matter : What is there in the Old Testament, 
which belongs to Judaism as such ; and xohat is there which 
belongs to the nature of true religion, at all times, 
among all nations, and in all places f 

That which belongs merely to Judaism as such, is wholly 
abolished by the Gospel. What belongs to all nations 
is fully retained. The proper application of these two 
simple principles, is all that is necessary to a right under- 
standing of this whole subject. The task needs, indeed, some 
good measure of discrimination and judgment. In some few 
cases it needs a more than ordinary knowledge of both the 
Jewish and the Christian religion. But in the main, the 
thing can be made intelligible to all ; and it may fairly be 
considered as feasible for the mass of Christians even tolera- 
bly well instructed, to draw the lines of separation in most of 
the important cases. 

The Jewish dispensation was introductory. To use the 
expressive language of Paul : " The Law was the shadow of 
good things to come, and was not the very image of those 
things." In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the substance of all 
that I aim at saying is fully exhibited. There we are most 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. OQV 

explicitly taught, that all the rites and ceremonies and sacri- 
fices of the Jewish dispensation were utterly inefficient in 
themselves to remove the burden of sin from the conscience, 
or to cancel the guilt of the offender. It is not possible that 
the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin. And 
again : "Sacrifice and the burnt-offerings and sin-offerings thou 
wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein." So even the 
prophets of old said to the formalists and the ritualists among 
the Jews. But there lay at the basis of all the rites and sa- 
crifices of the old dispensation, an important principle, a pre- 
figuration of the great and leading truth of the Gospel, viz., 
that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. 
But that blood " which taketh away the sin of the world," 
was not the blood of bullocks and of goats, but " the blood of 
Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself with- 
out spot to God, that he might purge our consciences from 
dead works, to serve the living God." Of this great atoning 
1 sacrifice,' all the victims slain at the altar of the Jewish dis- 
pensation, were only symbols or types. The pious Jew, who 
presented the sacrifices in question, if be presented them with 
a penitent and believing mind, might obtain remission of his 
sins, even spiritual remission. Yet not by virtue merely of 
his sacrifices, but only by virtue of that which they symbol- 
ized. Even the impenitent Jew, who complied with the let- 
ter of the Mosaic law, might and did obtain civil and ecclesi- 
astical remission. And this was all that any rites, ceremo- 
nies, or sacrifices, could ever procure in themselves for any 
one. 

That all this scheme of the Jewish ritual was, and was de- 
signed to be, symbolic and typical of a new and better state 
or dispensation, must be conceded, as it seems to me, by every 
candid mind. The utter ineffcacy of all sacrifices of beasts 
to lighten the burdened conscience or to atone for sin, is a 
matter past all question. Then for what purpose did the di- 
vine Being institute such a religion as that of Moses ? No 
answer can be given to this question, which is reasonable and 
satisfactory, except it be, that God designed all these things 



390 § 22. USE OP THE OLD TESTAMENT 

to he preparatory to another and letter dispensation. It is 
then, and only then, when we admit this, that any signifi- 
cancy or importance is attached to the Jewish religion, so far 
as all its externals are concerned. In every other point of 
view, it would he little more than solemn trifling. Mr. Nor- 
ton, who denies the atonement of Christ, and all the prophetic 
anticipations of him and his sacrifice, must of course think 
very meanly of the Jewish religion. The contemptuous 
manner in which he repeatedly adverts to the Levitical rit- 
ual, shows clearly that such is the state of his feelings. Be- 
lieving, as he undoubtedly does and should do, that no blood 
of bulls or of goats can take away sin, and acknowledging no 
symbolic and typical design in the Jewish offerings and sac- 
rifices — what remains but to draw the conclusion, that the 
whole fabric was one reared merely by superstition ? How 
different from this is the view of the thorough believer in 
God's ancient revelation ! He sees in all the rites and forms 
of the temple, and all the purifications of temple-worshippers, 
the symbols of the all important and distinguishing truths of 
the Gospel. 

The way seems now to be prepared for further progress. 
Tabernacle and temple are no more. Jerusalem is no longer 
our spiritual metropolis. God's temple is everywhere, on the 
land and on the sea. The whole earth is its area, and its 
vaulted roof is the arch of heaven lighted up with its suns 
and stars. The sacrifices and oblations now accepted and re- 
quired, are only a broken, contrite, grateful heart. No hyssop 
branch nor sprinkling priest has any office of lustration to per- 
form. No priest is needed to sprinkle the altar with blood ; no 
high priest to remove the veil and enter the most holy place. 
Christians are all kings and are all priests unto God, as to 
privileges and as to rank ; whilst the peculiar offices of ancient 
kings and priests are no more connected with the church. 

The high road, therefore, in which we are to travel, while 
searching out Old Test, ground, is plain and straight and 
broad. All in the Jewish Scriptures that pertains to rites 
and forms of worship, to sacrifices and oblations, to washings 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 391 

and purifications, to meats clean and unclean, to feasts annual 
or monthly, to circumcision and to the passover — all which is 
comprised within these, and all which are accidents or things 
attached to them or dependent upon them — all of this is ab- 
rogated, is repealed. It remains now only as the history of 
what is past, not the rule of action for the present or the fu- 
ture. And hi this point of view, it will always be interesting 
to the pious reader. It will unfold to him, in what manner 
divine Providence has been educating the human race ; by 
what slow and cautious steps religion has advanced, and how 
utterly impossible it is for a religion that abounds in rites and 
forms to make much effectual progress anywhere, either 
among Jews or Gentiles ; still more impossible that it should 
be a religion to convert the world. ' God had reserved that 
work for his own dear Son. 

It is easy for us, in view of what we may see from our pre- 
sent stand-point, to account for it, that Paul rebuked so 
sharply the Galatian Judaizers. The whole system of Le- 
vitical rites and ordinances, compared with the truly Christian 
and spiritual service, he names a bondage under the elements 
of the ivorld. That Christians, having once tasted the sweets 
of gospel-liberty, should turn back to these elements, rouses 
even his indignation. " How," says he in the strength of his 
displeasure — " how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly 
elements, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage ?" The law, 
he tells them, was only " a school-master to bring them unto 
Christ." And when they are introduced to him, he is the 
only master by whom they are to be guided. 

All, then, which is merely external in religion, everything 
pertaining to mere manner of worship, either as to prepara- 
tion for it by ritual observances, or as to the costume in which 
it is offered, or the place where, or the manner in which it is 
offered, is all repealed. Along with this, too, must be classed 
all the statutes and ordinances of the Old Testament, which 
pertain merely to the form of the Jewish ecclesiastical and 
civil state. The substantial relations of individuals to the 
church of God and to the civil government, have indeed suf- 



892 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

fered no change, and never can be changed while the nature 
of man continues to be what it is. But the manner in which 
these relations are to be indicated or developed, is for the 
most part greatly changed by the Gospel. 

We are not obliged to arrange our civil government after 
the model of the Jewish ; and as to priesthood, in its distinctive 
character as offering sacrifices and prescribing external puri- 
fications, it is forever done away. It is surprising to see how 
frequent mistakes are among writers even of the present day, 
in relation to this matter. A priesthood, in the literal sense, 
under the Christian dispensation, is out of all question. It is 
only in the figurative sense that Christians are priests, as 
well as kings ; and, let it be noted well — they are all priests. 
There is no distinct order among them. A priest's business 
was to prepare and present offerings and sacrifices ; to solve 
doubts and difficulties about ritual observances and concerning 
clean and unclean ; but he was no religious teacher in the 
higher sense, no preacher, no public guide or exemplar in 
prayer, no minister of instruction with regard to the spiritual 
duties of devotion and piety in general. What has been said 
in the former part of this work in relation to priest and pro- 
phet, abundantly establishes all this. The prophets were 
the only order of men, in ancient times, who can be compared 
with the ministers of the gospel. In all the New Testament, 
often as the various classes of officers in the church are men- 
tioned or alluded to, such a class as literal priests never once 
occurs. The great High Priest has made an end forever of 
all the rites of the priesthood, by offering up a sacrifice, in 
which all of this nature that could be needed, was consum- 
mated and fulfilled. All reasoning from the Levitical priest- 
hood then to the Christian ministry, is out of question. It is 
without any foundation ; and mistake and error are inevitable, 
where it is carried to any considerable extent. • 

All the arrangements in the Old Testament, which respect 
the investitures and forms of office, civil or ecclesiastical, 
among the Hebrews, are of no binding force upon us. All in 
their statutes and ordinances which respected merely the 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. Q"d6 

earthly Canaan as their land of promise, which related to 
their inheritances, their modes of acquiring or parting with 
property ; all that pertained to dress, manners, customs (not of 
an ethical nature), houses,|furniture, arts, occupations, and the 
like ; in one word, all that belongs to the external and physical, 
whether of convenience or inconvenience ; all this is done 
away, i. e. it is no longer binding on us. It has now become 
the history of what God's ancient people did, and how they 
demeaned themselves, and what were their outward circum- 
stances ; but not a rule of action for us, or an exemplar of the 
condition in which we must place ourselves. 

I am aware that some difficult questions may be raised, in 
respect to the metes and bounds of political, civil, and eccle- 
siastical laws, ordinances, or arrangements. For example : 
Shall we have a monarchy, because the Jews had one ? My 
answer to this would be, that Moses wished for no such thing ; 
he merely made provision to regulate it, in case it should be 
established. Samuel opposed a monarchy ; God himself se- 
verely reproved the Jews for desiring it ; 1 Sam. viii. On 
the other hand ; we cannot deny that David was set over the 
Jews as king, with special divine approbation. ^But is a re- 
public on this account unlawful ? One method of arguing, in 
this case, seems on the whole to be equally good with the 
other. In fact it is so ; but then, neither mode exhibits the 
least force of argument. What the Jews did, or did not, in their 
civil and social capacity, is nothing to us, except as a matter 
of history. It may be very useful to us in the way of teach- 
ing us what consequences are connected with certain modes 
of government, or of administration, so that we may learn 
to imitate or avoid, as the case may require. Our obligation 
to follow them politically, amounts to nothing. 

If this be correct, (as plainly it is), can any more obliga- 
tion, then, be shown to follow them ecclesiastically ? I should 
answer this question almost as readily as the other. Their 
ecclesiastical state was so implicated and connected with their 
civil ordinances, that they could not be separated. Their 
government, whether under Judges, Kings, or Priests, was 



394 § 22. USE OP THE OLD TESTAMENT 

theocratical. The State was the Church, and the Church the 
State. All persons initiated into their civil community were 
initiated into their ecclesiastical one, at the same time. Cir- 
cumcision was the seal of admission to both. Hence all the 
males that were circumcised, were Jewish church-members, 
and at the same time Jewish citizens. (I do not take into 
view the slaves or servants, in this case.) As a matter of 
course, all citizens were church-members. 

But can we carry over the analogy into Christian commu- 
nities ? It has been done. The Romish church virtually 
acknowledge the principle as obligatory. So does the En- 
lish national church ; so do the Lutheran churches generally 
in Europe. But would not the argument be equally valid, in 
respect to all the fasts and feasts and holidays and sacrifices 
and oblations and purifications of the Hebrews ? Surely it 
would ; and so the Judaizers of Paul's day actually argued. 
But what was his rely ? The epistles to the Romans, Gala- 
tians, and Hebrews, answer this question. 

Must we say, that all children are to be baptized, because 
the Jewish children were all circumcised ? How then shall 
we make oui the all, in this latter case ? None but male 
children were circumcised. Then again all servants, i. e. 
slaves, were also to be circumcised. What becomes of the 
analogy then ? It is out of question to maintain it ; at least 
in any tolerably strict sense. Besides ; what is plainer, than 
that the Jewish males and servants were all to be circumci- 
sed, in order that all might be engrafted into the politico-ec- 
clesiastical community ? Every citizen was bound by reli- 
gious as well as civil ordinances ; and circumcision subjected 
him to both. But Christianity, adapted to all countries, 
times, and nations, of necessity gives up the idea of regulating 
the forms of government, and all that pertains to customs and 
manners in regard to things indifferent, or not of a moral na- 
ture. " The kingdom of Christ is not of this wokld." 
A body politic, in its view, is not of course a body ecclesias- 
tic. Above all we may say, the New Testament commits 
no power over the church as such, to the body politic. How 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 395 

could it ? If it had so done, then Nero must have been Pon- 
tifex Maximus for the Christian church, in Paul's day. And 
not unlike to this, so far as principle is concerned, is the doc- 
trine that kings and potentates are now the head of the church 
in Christian countries. Were even Jewish kings the head of 
the Jewish church, and because they were kings ? I trust 
not. Where then is the present right of kings to such a 
place ? They do not obtain any patent for this from the 
Jewish institutions. Most surely they do not find it in the 
New Testament. They obtain it only by virtue of papal 
example. Henry the eighth usurped the pope's place, and 
his heirs have inherited what he usurped. And what is the 
necessary consequence? It is that a Charles II. and a 
George IV. have been the supreme Head of the national 
church of Great Britain. A consequence fitly joined with 
the arguments by which the whole matter is supported. 

How unwary, too, are many excellent men, in contending 
for infant baptism, on the ground of the Jewish analogy of 
circumcision ! Are females not proper subjects of baptism ? 
And again, are a man's slaves to be all baptized because he 
is ? Are they church-members of course, when they are so 
baptized ? Is there no difference between engrafting into a 
politico-ecclesiastical community, and into one of which it is 
said, that "it is not of this world ?" In short, numberless 
difficulties present themselves in our way, as soon as we be- 
gin to argue in such a manner as this. 

The doctrine that a civil power is of course in some good 
measure an ecclesiastical one, is merely an Old Testament 
and Jewish doctrine, not one which belongs to the New. It 
may, it does, suit well the ambitious and aggrandizing views 
of kings and potentates, to be placed at the head of the 
churches, to manage all their concerns, to have at their dispo- 
sal all ecclesiastical places of profit and honour, and to direct 
matters in such a way, that all the measures of the churches 
shall tend to establish and secure their power and influence. 
Hence the eagerness with which they cleave to this arrange- 
ment, and their aversion to any interference with claims on 



396 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT . 

their part of this nature. But the will and wishes of kings 
and princes and popes is one thing ; the precepts and doc- 
trines of the Great Head of the church are quite another. 

Of all the analogical reasoning from the ancient dispensa- 
tion to the new, that which respects the rights of kings and 
priests has been the most mischievous, and is the most falla- 
cious. Constantine paved the way for all that has been as- 
sumed by civil potentates, since his time. The dark ages 
concentrated all power, civil and ecclesiastical, in the Roman 
pontiff. Luther, that morning star of the Reformation, dis- 
solved the spell of false doctrine, which laid to sleep the spir- 
itual energies of all the churches. The political relations of 
the church, however, he never touched. He left her with as 
many popes as there were kings and petty princes in Ger- 
many, or elsewhere. Zuingli, and Calvin, and Knox under- 
stood this matter much better, but were able only partially to 
effect what they wished. Another Luther is needed in Eu- 
rope ; not merely to free the church from the spirit of rites 
and ceremonies, and penances and pilgrimages, and self right- 
eousness and formality, but to free it from all that domination 
which has no right to control it. Am I reproached with be- 
ing republican in these views, and with proclaiming my own 
particular politics rather than the New Testament ? My an- 
swer is, that I belong to a commonwealth, where " all are 
kings and priests ;" to one also, " where there is neither Jew 
nor Greek, bond nor free, Barbarian nor Scythian," but 
where " all are one in Christ Jesus." I belong to a republic, 
one of whose fundamental laws is, that I " should call no 
man Master on earth." We are not forbidden to do this in a 
civil sense ; such is no part of the Saviour's meaning. It is 
in a religious sense, that we are to acknowledge no supreme 
head of the church, except him who redeemed it. 

It is true, I am a republican even in matters of civil gov- 
ernment. But I am no bigot to this or to any other particu- 
lar form of civil government. All governments cannot be 
alike in all respects, so long as nations differ so much from 
each other in cultivation, habits, and manners. I believe, 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 397 

too, that in general the lest government is that which is best 
administered. I speak disparagingly of no monarchist, pro- 
vided he is not a sycophant to those in power. But I do not 
envy him his opinions, and cannot gratulate him on the 
ground of his political relations. 

But to my immediate object. All claims on the Old Test- 
ament for the support of civil domination over the spiritual 
kingdom of Christ, are futile. Plow can the king of one 
country, be king over the Christian church, since this church 
belongs to all countries ? The claim is groundless ; it is ut- 
terly without any good support. God speed, then, to the noble 
advocates of " the glorious liberty of the children of God," 
wherever they are or may be ! God speed to the noble 
movement in the Scottish Church, to the new race of Zuin- 
glis and of Knoxes ! No movement since the days of Lu- 
ther has promised so much to the liberty of the churches in 
Europe, as this. In fact, it is an effort at Reformation such 
as Luther never made. He left this great point untouched. 
Ten thousand thousand voices on this side of the Atlantic, in 
accents which I would hope will reach even across the mighty 
deep, bid the advocates of church freedom in Scotland God 
speed ! The experiment is, as our political fathers judged 
theirs to be when they met to declare and defend their liber- 
ties, worthy of pledging " their lives, their fortunes, and their 
sacred honour." May those engaged in making it succeed as 
well as our ancestors ! The time has come to avow their 
principles, in the face of heaven and earth. The time, as I 
would hope in God, has come, in which they may successful- 
ly defend them. If my feeble voice could reach across the 
Atlantic, I Avould say : All hail ! ye noble soldiers of the 
cross! Fight manfully the battles of the Lord. STAND 

FAST IN THE LIBERTY WHEREWITH CHRIST HAS MADE 
YOU FREE ! 

But I am losing myself in this interesting theme. Let 
us return, and see if there be not some additional considera- 
tions, that will help us to decide, in all cases of importance, 
U 



398 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

what in the Old Testament is binding on us, and what is 
not. 

Thus far we have gone upon the ground of specifying par- 
ticulars, which are exempted from the category of perpetual 
obligation. Let us shift our position, and look at the matter 
from another point of view. 

It is not difficult to lay down some simple and general 
principles ; and the application of them, in the main, is very 
easy. But in some cases, it requires indeed a nice discrimi- 
nation, and an extensive acquaintance with both the old and 
new dispensation, in order to decide with any good degree of 
certainty. But these cases are not numerous, and will occa- 
sion no serious embarrassment to those who are intent upon 
their actual and practical duties. 

I would lay it down, then, as a plain and palpable principle 
or maxim, in regard to the binding authority of the Old Test- 
ament, that all in it of the nature of precept or doctrine, which 
concerns the permanent relations of men to their God, their 
felloio beings, or themselves, stands unaltered and unrepealed 
by the Gospel. 

In view of such a principle the Saviour declared, that 
" heaven and earth should sooner pass away, than one jot or 
one tittle should pass from the Law, until all be fulfilled." 
True religion has always been, and always will be, the love of 
God and man. True religion always demanded, then, and 
always must demand, those duties which stand necessarily 
connected with the exhibition of love. To love God with all 
the heart, demands of us to reverence and obey him. To 
love our neighbour as ourselves, demands the performance of 
many duties connected with our relation to him. Now as 
to some of these duties, it is true that the manrcer of perform- 
ing them may in some respects vary ; but that manner, when 
not necessarily connected with the substance of the duty, is 
not a subject of prescription. The Jew, in order to pay his high- 
est devotions and homage to God, must present his paschal 
lamb in the temple, and cause its blood to be sprinkled at the 
altar. But all that was external and ceremonial, in a word all 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 399 

that pertained to the manner of paying his devotions and his 
homage, is now done away. And the same, of everything that 
concerns the manifestation of religious feeling, or of love to 
our neighbour. Whatever in the manner of any or all of the 
duties required of us, was Jewish, local, temporary, or depen- 
dent on, or modified by, time and place and external circum- 
stances — -all of this nature is no longer obligatory. We have 
only to inquire in every case, either of a doctrine or of a pre- 
cept, what there is in it which pertained to time and place 
and external circumstances ; and if we can find what that is, 
then so much of that precept or doctrine as pertains to the local 
or the temporary, is to be abstracted, Avhen we appropriate 
either of these to our own use. The principle is plain ; it is 
sound ; it is beyond fair question. We are no more bound 
to look toward Jerusalem when we pray, as Daniel did (6: 
10), than we are to present our sacrifices and oblations there. 
The duty of prayer remains obligatory, because it depends on 
the permanent and unchanging relations of man to God ; but 
the manner of it is not prescribed by anything which the Old 
Testament (or even the JS"ew) contains. 

How futile then are all appeals to Jewish altars and incense 
and priestly vestments, and pomp of worship, in order to jus- 
tify and even to insist upon corresponding things in a Chris- 
tian church ! God has lighted up and adorned his own mag- 
nificent temple — even the whole earth. His altar is on every 
spot, where the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart is of- 
fered. The sweet incense that he accepts is " the prayers of 
all the saints." How little do the advocates of all these ex- 
ternals seem to consider the true nature of that Being " who 
is a Spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth !" 

Almost everywhere, through the Old Testament, lie scat- 
tered principles and precepts which are of a permanent and 
enduring nature. On the other hand, seldom can we find 
any extensive portions of these Scriptures, which do not con- 
tain something that is merely local and temporary. 

It is important to illustrate this ; but it must be briefly done. 
I will select, as a specimen from the prophets, the brief work 



400 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

of Obadiah, consisting of only twenty-one verses. These are 
occupied with threatening evil to Edom, the old and bitter en- 
emy of Israel. As the nation of the Edomites has been extin- 
guished for more than 2000 years, it would seem that we had 
very little interest in such a book as this. Still, an attentive 
perusal of it will enable us to correct such a judgment. In 
that little book stands pourtrayed, in glowing colours, the doc- 
trine of retribution for enmity and injury done to others. 
There stands too, in high relief, the sentiment that God is 
King of nations ; that they are in his hands as clay in the 
hands of the potter ; and that although he may delay, he will 
not remit, the claims of a just retribution. There too may 
comfort be found. The poor oppressed and injured Jews, 
who had been attacked with fury by the Edomites, when bro- 
ken down and crushed to the dust by the Chaldaean power, 
are cheered with the certain promise of deliverance from the 
Edomitish aggression, and with the assurance that Edom shall 
be trodden down and utterly unable to rise up any more 
against them. In short, God is king of nations ; God will 
vindicate the cause of the oppressed ; and " God is angry 
with the wicked every day." To attack and oppress the suf- 
fering and the humbled, is matter of high treason in his sight. 
We cannot exult over the calamities of others, without expos- 
ing ourselves to the righteous indignation of the supreme 
Judge of all. 

Many other deductions might be made from this brief pro- 
phecy, which seems at first to promise so little that is inter- 
esting to us ; but I have purposely confined myself only to 
those things which lie upon the very surface of the composi- 
tion. 

Once more ; let us select a portion of Scripture, which is 
seemingly or at first view, one of the most unpromising of all 
which the Old Testament exhibits. The last fifteen chapters 
of Exodus are occupied almost entirely with a sketch or plan 
of the tabernacle, its apparatus, and its appurtenances, and 
with an account of the manner in which the whole of this 
plan was carried into execution. A great portion is simple 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 401 

detail of architectural designs, and of the materials with which 
various things were to be constructed. What possible inter- 
est now can we have in all this ? 

If I may be permitted to answer this question, 1 would say : 
There are several points of view, in which we may look at 
this with some interest. Does the architect take any interest 
in the history of his art ? Here is rich material ; and this 
in respect to things some 1500 years before the Christian 
era. Let him compare the whole with the i*emains of ancient 
art in Egypt. Does the historian, who relates the progress 
of invention in the arts, manufactures, luxuries, and conven- 
iences of life, wish for a view of what existed at a most re- 
mote period, in each of these respects ? Here he has ample 
material, in this sketch by Moses. Does the historian of the 
Hebrew nation wish to trace the progress of its improvements 
in the arts, and conveniences, and the luxuries of life ? Here 
he has an important document. If there were no other uses 
than these of the document in question, they would be enough 
to make it very welcome to all the lovers of antiquity. But 
there are other important considerations still remaining. 

For what purpose was such a magnificent and costly struc- 
ture required ? Was it that God dwells in temples made by 
hands ? No, nothing of this. But still, when God reveals 
himself to men, and (so to speak) takes up his abode with 
them, he must do this in a manner worthy of his nature and 
of the occasion. Even idols had their magnificent temples. 
The true God is not to be placed below them. Under a dis- 
pensation where so much of the external was necessary, in 
order to meet the demands of the times and the ignorance of 
the people, God must be enthroned in a palace worthy as it 
were of his presence. An impression of his majesty and of 
his high and holy nature must be made, by such a use of ex- 
ternals as will command respect and homage. Nor is this all. 
God must be approached and worshipped, by a presentation 
of the best gifts, the most costly and precious offerings. The 
most valuable and costly substances are therefore put in re- 
quisition for his worship. Men are called upon to acknow- 
34* 



402 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ledge him as the author and the rightful lord and proprietor 
of all that belongs to them, even of their most precious things. 
A law dispensation called in a special manner for veneration 
of the Law-giver, and sacred awe in his presence. The King 
and Lord of the Jewish nation deemed it proper to appear 
among them as their monarch, in his splendid and holy pal- 
ace. God designed that the Israelites should feel his claims, 
and his perfect right, to the best which they could offer him. 
Nothing ordinary, common, valueless, impure, could be pre- 
sented as material for his tabernacle, or to constitute the ob- 
lations and gifts there offered. The impression of all these 
arrangements upon the simple and untutored mind was salu- 
tary in a high degree, and filled it with a deferential respect 
which would check the spirit of disobedience. And from all 
may we not draw the inference, even at the present time, 
that men are bound not to withhold even their choicest sub- 
stance and gifts, when the service of God requires them ? 
Truly we may, and with good reason. God, whose temple 
is everywhere, does indeed no longer require us to rear mag- 
nificent edifices for his dwelling-place. But the spirit of taber- 
nacle and temple building admonishes us, that churches should 
not be constructed so as to convey an idea of grudging and of 
avarice in the builders, or so as to inspire those who repair to 
them with disrespect or contempt. All should be done decent- 
ly, as well as in order. Let the external not be at variance 
with the internal. Let both be such as becomes the nature 
•of the worship and of the Being to whom it is paid. And 
this very consideration forbids all that is gaudy and fini- 
-cal, or fraught with mere display, and demands the simple, 
the chaste, the neat, the sober, the grave, the impressive. 

And are these instructions, now, matters of no account ? 
Is not the practical exhibition of them as striking and im- 
pressive as the mere abstract statement of the principles ex- 
hibited in them would be ? Nay, is it not far more so ? I 
understand, indeed, what is meant, when we are forbidden to 
approach our neighbour's house, with hostile feelings, in the 
• day of his calamity, or to exult over his misfortunes. But 



"CXDEK THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 403 

when Edom is held up before my eyes by Obadiah as having 
rushed upon the Jews, in the day of their humiliation by the 
power of Babylon ; when the embittered enmity, the spirit 
of vengeance and of rapacity, and the unspeakable meanness of 
the Edomites, and their consequent punishment, is embodied 
and made palpable and held np to open view in this way; I am 
far more affected and even instructed by it, than I am by the 
abstract precept in question. 

And when the splendid gifts of all who had a willing heart 
among the Jews are made, and the magnificent structure of 
the tabernacle is reared, and God descends in a shining cloud 
which fills and covers the building, and speaks from his 
awful sanctuary there, who wonders that even Moses was un- 
able to enter in because of the excess of glory, or that all the 
people should fall prostrate on their faces and worship ? And 
when we read all this, are we not as deeply impressed with a 
sense of the majesty of God, and of the reverence and obedi- 
ence due to him, as we are with the simple declaration, that 
God is great, and greatly to be feared and had in reverence 
by all who approach him ? Whoever decides, that nothing is 
to be learned from even such narratives as these, decides has- 
tily and without becoming consideration of the whole matter. 
Still, the instructions of the Gospel are more palpable and 
forcible ; at least they are so to most minds. 

May we not conclude, then, that fruit may be gathered 
from all parts of the Old Testament prophecy, and history, 
and even from the structure of sacred edifices ? Are they not 
in some respects all " ensamples, written for our admonition, 
on whom the ends of the world have come ?" I believe 
them to be so. I think Paul looked upon them in this light. 
And where is there now, in all the historical books of Scrip- 
ture, any narrations from which something may not be learn- 
ed ? I do not say something new, but I mean to say, that 
some truth is taught, illustrated, or confirmed, which is a truth 
of permanent interest, at all times and in all places. Is not 
all the Jewish history theocratical ?■ Is not all Hebrew pro- 
phecy theocratical f It is truly so ; in prophecy and in histo- 



404 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

ry, God is all and in all. His providence, his retribution, his 
pleasure or displeasure, his hatred of sin, his love of justice 
and holiness, his supremacy, his requirements, are everywhere 
directly or indirectly taught. Even where nothing more than 
simple national or individual events are related, whether in 
history or in prophecy, there still lies in this, an account of 
the divine dealings with men, or of the wickedness of the hu- 
man heart, or of its penitence and obedience and holiness. 
There is always something to imitate, or something to be 
shunned. Even the most moderate intellect cannot fail to 
observe this. 

It needs, I readily concede, some skill always in a success- 
ful manner to divest the kernel of its shell or its husk ; more 
than some of those expositors have exhibited, who have the 
faculty of making one passage of Scripture just as fruitful as 
another, and even of deducing a whole system of theology 
from any given passage. But still, common sense and a mod- 
erate share of taste may suffice for the matter in question. 
The maxim of philosophizing civilians is, that history is pre- 
cept teaching by example. If that is true of profane history, 
is it not more so of sacred f So, I must think, Paul believed 
and taught ; and so we may believe and teach after him. 

Then what a boundless variety is given to the themes of a 
skilful preacher ! Without any double sense, or occult mean- 
ing, or forced allegory, or anagogical process, he can go any- 
where in the wide field of Scripture, and find something that 
is useful and instructive. Such a preacher would be among 
the last to part with the Old Testament. 

Thus far I have given mere hints ; and these are all which 
time and place permit. I must not quit the subject, howev- 
er, without adding a few more. 

I have said, that rarely will one find any considerable por- 
tion of the Old Testament, where there is nothing in it of the 
local and temporal that must be abstracted, in order for us 
to reduce it to practice or present use. In the devotional 
Psalms even, there are references to places and modes of 
worship, which we must separate and distinguish from those 



TINDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 405 

sentiments by which we are now to be profited. The Psalms 
of complaint, of thanksgiving, pf imprecation, and others, all 
have something which savours of time and place and circum- 
stances. These we must omit ; excepting that in the exege- 
sis of the Psalm we must treat them as essential, but not in 
the practical use of it. 

It is so with the Mosaic laws. Many, even most of them, 
have something attached to them or connected with them, 
which is Jewish, and therefore local and temporary. Even 
the ten commandments are not altogether an exception to this. 
"When we are required to honor our father and mother, we 
are commanded to do what will always be a duty, at all times, 
among all nations. But when the promise is added, that we 
shall have long life in the land of Canaan, in consequence of 
filial duty, this is a part which belonged only to the Jews. 
The promise to us, is a higher and a spiritual reward. The 
Gospel holds out no mere earthly promises other than what 
virtue generally holds out, by pointing us to the consequences 
which follow the practice of it. 

I would say also, that " visiting the iniquity of the fathers 
upon the children, to the third and fourth generation," (which 
is a part of another commandment), has an oriental shape ; 
for in the East, punishment for any high misdemeanor usually 
involved, as it still does, the whole of one's posterity in the 
same consequences which himself must suffer. What re- 
mains for us, is, to regard the command as threatening severe 
and unmitigated punishment. 

So I might go through the whole Pentateuch, yea, through 
all the historical and prophetical books, and apply the same 
principles with the like results. It does indeed require some 
good measure of sobriety, of discretion, and discrimination, al- 
ways to make the separation between the local and temporal 
and the permanent, in a proper manner. And so it does rightly 
to appreciate the figurative language of Scripture, its metaphors 
and its allegories. The man whose mind is adequate to this 
task, may surely be fitted to perform the other. Indeed, 
most men of any tolerable education and of good common 



406 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

sense, can perform the task in question with little danger of 
erring, except in a few of the more difficult cases. To make 
the distinctions in question, is a matter, I may also remark, 
which really belongs to the practical commentaries upon the 
Scriptures ; and some of them have in part performed it. 
But alas ! how few of the authors of these have been distin- 
guished for a profound critical and exegetical knowledge of the 
Scriptures ! How few have satisfied the claims of the reason 
and understanding of men ! Many of them abound in re- 
marks full of pious feeling ; and some of them show an ex- 
tensive knowledge of Christian experience in matters of reli- 
gion. But all this may be, without shedding any new light 
on the path of the ignorant and the inquiring. Pages, I had 
almost said volumes, of some of them may be read without 
meeting with any such light. The consequence of course is, 
that in many, perhaps in most cases, reading of this sort be- 
gins, after a while, to weary him who performs it, and he 
comes to it as to a task prescribed, rather than a privilege to 
be desired. It cannot be expected that such reading will be 
long practised. A commentary that would give us simply 
what is to be fairly learned from every part of the Old Tes- 
tament, in respect to present duty, or as to doctrine, and 
which would do this throughout the Scriptures, is one of the 
things yet to be ; for I cannot think that it now is. God is 
preparing men, I doubt not, for the accomplishment of such 
a work ; one in which all the results of critical and exegeti- 
cal study shall be embodied, and united with all that eminent 
Christian experience may suggest or teach. May such a 
work be hastened in its time ! 

Many good men, in treating of Old Test, matters, and ex- 
plaining the contents of these books, seem to think that they 
are at liberty to pursue allegory and type and anagogical pro- 
cesses, to any extent that they please. A greater mistake can 
hardly be made, in so important a concern. The moment a 
reader or hearer gets possession of the idea, that a writer or 
preacher is merely addressing himself to his imagination and 
fancy, he ceases to give him his serious confidence. He may 



TINDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 407 

be amused — greatly amused, if we must concede it, by the in- 
genuity and vivid fancy of his interpreter ; but after all he 
will with difficulty be brought to believe, that the sacred 
writers addressed themselves to readers in the way of amuse- 
ment. His first feeling, after a little of wonder or perhaps of 
admiration is over, is indifference. His next is uneasiness in 
reading or hearing things of this nature. It is well if the 
matter does not end in contempt of the whole. 

I would that the Old Testament were employed oftentimes 
in quite a different way from that which is not uncommon in 
resorting to it. "What can we say of those teachers, who find 
just as full and complete a revelation in the Old Testament of 
every Christian doctrine, as in the New ? For example ; the 
doctrine of the Trinity is found as completely there, as in the 
New Testament. Yet the Saviour, in reference even to Mo- 
ses says, that " no man hath seen God at any time ; the only 
begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de- 
clared him ,*" John 1:18. Were the Jews Trinitarians, be- 
fore the coming of Christ ? I know of no satisfactory evidence 
of this fact. All the efforts to prove it have ended in mere 
appeals to cabbalizing Jews, who lived long after the New Tes- 
tament was written. It is the light which the New Testament 
casts upon various passages of the Old, and that only, which 
enables us to bring the Old Testament to bear upon this doc- 
trine. It remained for Christ to make the full revelation of 
this. It was only by the incarnation, that the Trinity of the 
Godhead was fully developed. And when the New Testa- 
ment asserts, that this or that thing was done by Christ, or 
the Logos, under the ancient dispensation, or that this or that 
was spoken by him, it is only then that we come to a full 
knowledge of any specific nature, as it respects the Old Tes- 
tament, concerning the persons of the Godhead. In this way, 
the Old Testament does indeed contribute important aid in 
making us acquainted with the doctrine of the Trinity. 

Take another instance in respect to the immortality of the 
soul and a future state. Paul says of Christ, that " he has 
abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light 



408 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

through the gospel;" 2 Tim. 1: 10. But if all this was re- 
vealed and understood before the coming of Christ, on what 
can this assertion be grounded ? Not that the Hebrews were 
entirely ignorant, as many have asserted, of a future state. 
"Were they inferior, in this respect, to their neighbours the 
Egyptians and the Greeks ? Not that some such men as 
Enoch, and Abraham, and David, and Isaiah, had no proper 
views of future rewards and punishments. The apostle ex- 
plicitly asserts (Heb. xi.), that they had. But still, it was 
reserved for the Gospel to turn Jewish twilight into broad 
Christian day. It has done so. But in expounding the Bi- 
ble under its influence, we must attribute no more to the Old 
Testament, than belongs to it. The glory of the gospel is not 
to be taken away, and given to a mere introductory dispensa- 
tion. The ministration of the Law had indeed its glory ; but 
the apostle assures us, that " it now has [comparatively] no 
glory, by reason of that which excelleth." 

Let these and the like great principles be always kept in 
view. We need not become Judaizers, because we maintain 
the authenticity of the Old Testament. Its day has passed. 
But how could a divine religion be revealed in it, and yet 
none of the principles inculcated by the gospel be exhibited ? 
The thing was impossible. That we should love God su- 
premely, and our neighbour as ourselves, was always taught — 
always urged. But a thousand things in respect to the detail 
of all the developments of these great principles, are different 
in the Old Testament from what is demanded by the New. 
Let us fully recognize this, and thank God for our better light. 
But our gratitude for the Gospel need not lead us to skepti- 
cism about the Jewish Scriptures, nor to any undervaluing of 
them. Very different must the state of our minds be which 
would lead us to do this, from that of Paul, who so often 
resorted to them in order to show that Jesus was the Cbrist. 
"We should regard them in the light of a preface or of an intro- 
duction to the gospel. Why should the book be admitted, 
and the preface, which explains the nature of it, be thrown 
away? 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 409 

It would be endless to particularize all the wrong uses which 
are made, even by many Christian ministers, of the Old Tes- 
tament, and the violence often done to it in order to make it 
speak as men wish. It might be a profitable employment, to 
present " the cry of injured texts," and plead their cause be- 
fore an impartial tribunal. But my present object forbids me 
to enlarge upon this part of my subject. 

I cannot well doubt, that not a few intelligent minds are 
rendered somewhat averse to the Old Testament, on account 
of the many irrelevant appeals to it which are made both in 
and out of the pulpit, and the irrelevant quotations made from 
it. Books of such a peculiar nature as Job and Ecclesiastes, 
for example, are resorted to with as much confidence for 
proof-texts, as if they were all preceptive, and not an account 
of disputes and doubts about religious matters. Job 19: 25 seq. 
is constantly quoted, to show the patriarch's knowledge of a 
Messiah to come, and of the doctrine of the resurrection, not- 
withstanding the context and the tenor of the whole book are to- 
tally of a different nature. The Psalms that breathe forth im- 
precations are appealed toby some, as justifying the spirit of 
vengeance under the gospel, instead of being regarded as the 
expression of a peculiar state of mind in the writer, and of his 
imperfect knowledge with regard to the full spirit of forgive- 
ness. Thanks for national blessings, and gratitude for indi- 
vidual deliverances from personal danger, are turned into ex- 
pressions of gratitude for blessings purely spiritual, and for 
deliverances merely spiritual. There is indeed not much if 
any harm in this ; but still, it is on the whole better always 
to let the Bible speak just what it simply says, and no more- 
The practice of straining the construction of it in any way, 
gives rise to many improper liberties with it. Skeptics are 
always ready to take advantage of this ; and it is not best to 
give them occasion to exult over the weakness or the preju- 
dices of its advocates. 

I have hardly touched upon the subject of unlimited license 
in the matter of types and double sense and allegorical exposi- 
tion. The boundless liberties of this nature, which have been 
35 



410 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

taken in days that are past, is too well known to need descrip- 
tion. Every conspicuous person and thing has been regarded 
as a type of Christ, or of his church, until at last it comes to 
this, that all the ancient world existed and acted only in the 
capacity of types or foreshadowings of persons or events to 
come. All the articles of ornament or furniture for the taber- 
nacle and temple, were mere patterns of something that was 
to be attached to the new temple under the new dispensation. 
Even the trays, and bowls, and tongs, and snuffers, and can- 
dlesticks, bore a significant and not unimportant part, as it 
respected the Messianic times; and of course all offices and 
duties, of priests and Levites and servitors, must have their 
proper significance. Anything which befel Moses, or Joshua, 
or David, or other conspicuous personages, the story of which 
is found in the Old Testament, becomes, under such a pro- 
cess, and by virtue of a vnovow. or occult sense, full of signifi- 
cance under the new order of things. Launched on a bound- 
less ocean, and without chart or compass, the allegorists seem 
intent only upon rapid sailing ; it matters little in what direc- 
tion. 

Public taste has, some time since, begun to correct these 
extravagances. But every now and then the doubter of the 
ancient Scriptures meets with them still, and curls his lip in 
proud disdain. No wonder. " Si naturam furca expellas, us- 
que recurret." Violence done to the understanding and to 
sober common sense, although it may be slow-footed, will be 
certain to avenge itself at last. If there is any book in all the 
world addressed to the sober reason and judgment of men, 
that book is the Bible. It is written by men, addressed to 
men, and designed for men. Of course it adopts a human 
and intelligible manner of address throughout. God has 
shown his paternal condescension to the weaknesses of men, 
in all this. The Scriptures, written in any other manner, 
could be of but little profit to us. And when we see methods 
of interpretation applied to them, which no other book will 
-bear, and which would hold any one up to scorn if he should 
adopt them in explaining a Classic, how can it be expected, 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 411 

that the understanding and reason will not distrust them, and 
sooner or later be sure to revolt against them ? 

Among all the abuses of the Old Testament, none are more 
conspicuous than those which result from sectarian views and 
purposes. What a mere lump of wax does the Bible become 
in the hands of a zealous defender of sect, perfectly moldable 
at his pleasure. No laws of language or of grammar stand in 
his way. The original intention of the writer of the Scrip- 
ture is little or nothing to the purpose. The occult meaning 
is summoned to his aid ; and this is always ready, at his bid- 
ding, to assume every possible form. Arrned in this way, his 
antagonists are cut down by whole ranks at a blow, and the 
standard of sect waves speedily over that of the Bible. 

Perhaps the prophecies suffer most of all from party spirit 
and narrow partial views of exegesis. A popular writer, who 
is much more conspicuous for eloquence and imagination, than 
for philology or discriminating powers of mind, rises up and 
proclaims great events at hand, or not far distant. The book 
of Daniel and the Apocalypse, above all, are thrown into the 
furnace, " heated seven times more than it is wont to be," 
and there comes out from the crucible a new and splendid 
metal, the result of wondrous combination and composition. 
The nations, the events, the ecclesiastical establishments, the 
heresies, of modern Christian countries, are all discovered in 
the reflection of this shining compound. Above all, the suc- 
cessor of St. Peter finds himself placed at the head of all the 
indications that are prophetic. It matters not whether a 
book is written to instruct a church, or to console one amidst 
the evils and sufferings of persecution ; nor even whether it 
was addressed to the Babylonian Jews in exile ; the same 
conspicuous personage, Peter's successor, and his attendants, 
fill all the foreground of every picture. The question as to 
the edification of those to whom the prophecies were origi- 
nally addressed, has nothing to do with the exposition of the 
prophet's work. The only thing or personage that can fill the 
eye of a prophet, when he takes into view the new Dispen- 
sation, must be the pope. No other beast of " seven heads 



412 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

and ten horns " ever made or could make its appearance ; 
no other " scarlet beast, full of the names of blasphemy," has 
ever presented itself before the eyes of a prophetic seer ; none 
other but she whom this beast bears, " the mother of harlots," 
has ever held in her hands the " cup of abominations" and 
been " drunk with the blood of saints." And then the partizan, 
in his overflowing zeal, would fain compel us to say, whether we 
can suppose that Daniel, or John, or any other prophet, was 
not a full-blooded Protestant ? And such being the case, he 
wishes to know, whether such a prophet could ever think or 
prophesy concerning any other beast than the pope ? 

Such a use of the prophetic writings is what we are called 
to witness every day, even in these times, when the rage for 
type, and allegory, and double sense, and occult meaning, has 
in a very considerable measure abated. Protestants, not well 
furnished with other arms against the papacy, resort to this 
weapon, which is always ready at hand, and kept indeed tol- 
erably well burnished by use. Alas ! the misfortune is, that 
the weapon has two edges ; and in its reverberating stroke, 
(for it is sure to make one), cuts the assailant as deeply as he 
had wounded his antagonist. Another generation must pass, 
before this battle will be over. And then, when time has 
shown, beyond contradiction, that all the calculations of prog- 
nosticators about the times designated in Daniel and the 
Apocalypse are clearly frustrated, confidence in such inter- 
pretations will vanish as a matter of course. The pope seen 
by John, and described by him ! Then, in John's time, (i. e. 
about A. D. 68 when the Apocalypse was written), there had, 
according to Rev. 17: 10, already been jive popes who were 
dead ; one was then living and reigning ; and one then to 
come, whose time would be short. And besides this — what a 
precious consolation to the poor bleeding and disconsolate 
churches of that period, to be told, that out of the bosom of 
that very church and religion which they so loved and hon- 
oured, would spring the most wicked, formidable, persecuting, 
and permanent enemy that the church had ever seen ! Con- 
solation, with a witness ! 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 413 

Sed manum — There is no end to abuses of this sort, 
whether of the Old Testament or of the New. Yet even the 
sacred cause of true • Protestantism cannot defend them, or 
apologize for them. It must be true, that this cause invites to 
the use of no false armour ; it asks for no pious fraud to sup- 
port it. It regards the oracles of God as so immeasurably 
elevated above all human conceits or party feeling or effort, 
that it would scorn to employ means so little worthy of con- 
fidence as those in question. 

I must say one word, before I lay down my pen, in respect 
to some general views of this great subject, viz. the use of 
the Old Testament. 

There are not a few persons, who seem to feel, that if the 
Old Testament is a work a? inspiration, it must stand on the 
same level with the New, and be equally obligatory. There 
is something of truth in this, and not a little of error. It is 
true, that whatever God has sanctioned, is of divine authority. 
It is true, at any rate in my apprehension it is, that the wri- 
ters of the Old Testament " spake as they were moved by 
the Holy Ghost ;" 2 Pet. 1: 21. But then comes the all im- 
portant inquiry : Did what they said have relation to the church 
Jewish, or the church Christian ? Did it concern the Hebrew 
nation only for a time, and in their peculiar circumstances ; 
or did it relate to the immutable principles of piety and sound 
morality ? God may give commands respecting things that 
are temporary, as well as those which are lasting. It is no 
derogation from his authority, or from the importance of the 
Old Testament, that temple, and priesthood, and sacrifices, 
and oblations, and purifications, and distinctions between 
clean and unclean, have passed away and are no more. And 
so all that was peculiar to the Hebrew nation and their par- 
ticular condition has passed away. Our only difficulty con- 
sist, sin finding the boundaries between the local and temporal 
and the permanent. But there is one simple principle that 
covers all this ground. The main difficulty left is, the appli- 
cation of it in some of the nicer cases. The old maxim of 
the civilians, in regard to laws that are ancient, when the 
35* 



414 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

question arises, whether they are still in force, is : Manente 
ratione, manet ipsa Lex ; i. e. so long as the reason of the 
law continues, the laio itself is in full force. This is the com- 
pass to guide us, in traversing the whole ground from the be- 
ginning of Genesis to the end of Malachi. All that is 

FOUNDED IN THE PERPETUAL RELATIONS OF MEN TO GOD, 
TO EACH OTHER, AND TO THEMSELVES, AND WHICH IS 
THE SUBJECT OF PRESCRIPTION, COMMAND, OR INSTRUC- 
TION ON THE PART OF HEAVEN, IS PERMANENT. 

But even in cases of this nature, whatever there is in any 
command or instruction, which concerns merely the manner 
of the thing, and not the essential nature of the duty, is no 
longer obligatory on us. We have a new and a better Tes- 
tament than the ancient. In itself it is a sufficient guide. 
But we should thankfully accept whatever of confirmation or 
illustration of our Christian duties, there is in the ancient 
Hebrew Scriptures. Even from the ten commandments, as 
we have seen, something in respect to the manner of promis- 
ed reward, or of threatened punishment, is to be abated. 

If any one now should demand of me, to lay down a rule 
so precise and particular, that every reader of the Old Tes- 
tament may judge with certainty in every possible case, what 
is local and temporary, and what is permanent, I can no 
more do this, than I could prescribe a rule in hermeneutics 
which would exempt all men from actual error in the inter- 
pretation of the figurative language of the Bible. The gen- 
eral principles that I have now developed are plain, practical, 
and certain in their result when rightly applied. The power 
to make such an application of them depends not on me, but 
on the gift of Heaven, and the efforts of the inquiring to 
qualify themselves for the work. I can only speak my good 
wishes for inquirers ; which are that they may meet with de- 
sired success. Nothing but the want of skill or tact, stands 
in the way of acquiring that which they seek. 

Of one thing I am fully persuaded, which is, that a proper 
use of the Old Testament will be made in all cases, by no 
one who cleaves to the notion, that because, the Hebrew 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 415 

Scriptures were inspired, they are therefore absolutely perfect. 
Such perfection belongs not to a prefatory or merely introduc- 
tory dispensation. It is only a relative perfection that the 
Old Testament can claim ; and this is comprised in the fact, 
that it answered the end for which it was given. It was given 
to the world, or to the Jewish nation, in its minority. It was 
given to " the heir, when he was under tutors and governors, 
and differed not from a servant, although he was lord of all." 
It seems difficult for some to believe, that God has dealt with 
the world, as he does with each individual. There is a state 
of infancy, of childhood, of youth, of maturity, of old age. 
The same person is an actor in all these stages. And 
so it has been, and will be, with the world of mankind. The 
world has had its infancy, its childhood, its youth ; it is slow- 
ly approaching its maturity. As to its old age, I trust it will 
be like the hoary head of him who is found in the way of 
righteousness — a crown of glory. "Why now should any one 
insist that a revelation adapted to its minority should be as 
ample and complete in its requirements, as a revelation in- 
tended for its most perfect state ? Divine Providence does 
not convert whole nations in a day, from their sin and igno- 
rance. Slow has always been the process and progress. One 
third or more of the time that the race of men have existed, 
they had no Bible. It was not until more than a thousand years 
after the composition of the Old Testament commenced, that 
it was completed. "Why was it not all given at once ? And 
why was not a revelation in writing given to the antediluvi- 
ans ? Why did not Enoch, Noah, Abraham, write one ? 
Can any one answer these questions, except in the way in 
which I have already answered them ? The race of man, as 
a whole, has all the different stages of development assigned 
to it. 

Let us now proceed a step further. With the exception of 
such sins as were highly dishonorable to God and injurious to 
the welfare of men, the rules of duty were not in all cases 
strictly drawn. So our Saviour seems to have' regarded the 
matter. "When he reproached the Pharisees for the fre- 



416 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

quency of divorces which they allowed, and they appealed to 
Moses as sanctioning it, Jesus replied and said : " Moses, be- 
cause of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away 
your wives ; but from the beginning it was not so ;" Matth. 
19: 8. I am well aware, that there are casuists at the pre- 
sent day, who think Moses to have judged very wrongly in 
this case. And so in regard to his permission of slavery, and 
some other things. We cannot reason, I allow, in all cases 
with entire certainty, as to what is allowable under the Gos- 
pel, because it was allowed under the old dispensation. Po- 
lygamy was allowable ; and if concubinage was not, it was 
generally practised, and does seem to have been regarded as 
not forbidden, but only regulated. Slavery was allowed. 
Great latitude of divorce, at the will of the husband (but not 
of the wife) was allowed. Does the Gospel allow any of 
these ? I know that some serious and well-meaning men are 
disposed to argue, that the Gospel allows of slavery. It is my 
opinion also, that where it has become a part of. the constitu- 
tion of any society of men, the Gospel does not require the 
whole system to be broken up and abandoned in a single day ; 
for this might endanger the welfare of the whole. But I can 
never entertain a doubt, that the precepts and principles of 
the Gospel forbid the making of slaves. When it is required 
of us, that we should love our neighbour as ourselves ; and in 
explanation of this it is also required, that we should do to 
others whatever we would that others shoidd do to us ; and 
when, with all this, it is expressly declared that God has 
made of one blood all the nations that dwell on all the face 
of the earth ; I understand this as settling all questions respect- 
ing any slavery, which is not the result of crime or a forfeit- 
ure of liberty by evil-doing, or of voluntary compact on the 
part of the slave. 

Moses then did allow — the ancient dispensation did allow 
— of some things which are no longer permitted. In this an 
important principle is involved. The Old Testament moral- 
ity, in respect to some points of relative duty, is behind that 
of the Gospel. Why then should we regard the Old Testa- 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 417 

ment as exhibiting an absolute model of perfection, in its pre- 
cepts and its doctrines ? In some cases, most plainly this is 
not true. It needs discretion and judgment, then, to know 
how to argue properly from the Old Testament to the New. 
But why should the Old Testament be reproached for not 
having accomplished all which the Gospel has ? Was it de- 
signed for such an end ? Certainly it was not. Is it just 
matter of reproach, then, that while it is adapted to all the 
purposes which it was designed to subserve, it falls short of 
the higher mark which the Messianic legislation has reached ? 
I trow not. 

If preachers and teachers would but remember these plain 
and simple facts, they would be less troubled with that in the 
Old Testament which now presents them with difficulty. The 
Gospel is ever and always the ultima ratio in all matters of 
religion and morals. It is the supreme court, the highest tri- 
bunal. Whatever there is in the Old Testament, which falls 
short of this, or is at variance with this, is of course not obli- 
gatory on us. With certain states of society, and certain 
prejudices of men in regard to matters toward which they are 
naturally inclined, God has dealt more leniently in his an- 
cient legislation, than in the Gospel. " The times of igno- 
rance God winked at." But where light and knowledge 
abound, he will no longer do this. 

If you ask then, as many will doubtless be inclined to 
do, what test shall we apply in all cases to Old Testament 
precepts ? My general answer would be : Apply to them the 
rules of the New Testament. Is it not certain, that the New 
Testament is a more perfect rule of doctrine and of duty ? 
What hirrders us then from putting the Old Testament al- 
ways to such a test ? And if there be cases that are not spe- 
cifically touched upon in the New Testament, which are 
brought to view in the Old, yet analogy may always guide us 
in inquiries of such a nature. The spirit of New Testament 
doctrine, morality, modes of worship (so far as modes are 
touched upon), is always to be applied to judging of our ob- 
ligations to the ancient Scriptures. 



418 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

Will you ask me then : < Of what use is the Old Testament 
to us ? If it is thus to be altogether subordinate and second- 
ary, why not dismiss it from the lofty eminence of an author- 
ity ?' I feel no difficulty, at least in satisfying myself, in re- 
lation to these questions. Is it of no advantage, to be able to 
appeal to the ancient revelation in all cases of religious and 
moral precept or doctrine, and to find there the immutable 
principles of virtue and piety sanctioned, and thus to know 
that they are the same in every age ? Is it no advantage, 
to learn how God dealt with his ancient church for some 
1500 and more years ? Is there no advantage in having a 
religious'historj of the past, which is sketched by an unerring 
hand ? A church history which has a divine author ? Is 
there no gain to the devout Christian, in seeing embodied in 
the Psalms and in the prophets, the workings of piety in the 
distinguished minds of ancient days ? Is there no gain to the 
ethical teacher, in having before him the inexhaustible store 
of prudential and practical maxims in the book of Proverbs ? 
Have Christian preachers no sympathies in common with the 
preachers, i. e. the prophets, of old ? The New Testament 
gives us a precept, or teaches a doctrine ; is it no satisfaction 
to find practical exhibitions of the precept, and confirmations 
of the doctrine, in the Old Testament ? The Christian church 
is built upon the Jewish ; not by destroying the foundations 
of the latter, but only by demolishing parts of the superstruc- 
ture, in order to make the whole more perfect ; and hast thou 
no holy curiosity to know what the ancient foundations were ? 
In a word, the Old Testament teaches that God is all and in all, 
as well as the New ; but from the Old Testament we learn 
in a peculiar manner, that he may develop himself in a vari- 
ety of ways, and that he has so done. True Christian liber- 
ality may be learned and enforced by considerations of this 
nature, as well as the duty of submission and obedience. 

There are imperfections in the ancient system ; but they 
are such as the nature of the case rendered necessary. They 
are in accordance with the principle of the slow and gradual 
amendment of the race of man. The record of our infancy 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 419 

and childhood, if it could be fully placed before us, would 
create a deep interest in the breast of every individual so far 
as his own story is concerned. "Why then should the record 
of the church's infancy be spurned at, as though it was not 
deserving of our attention ? 

But I have said enough. It is time to withdraw my hand. 
And this I will do, as soon as I have said a few words on the 
general subject of charges made by Mr. Norton, against the 
morality and the spirit of the Old Testament writings. 

It is not my object to enter at all into any discussion on 
these points. I have said, at the first, that I should leave 
these matters to be canvassed by others. Enough that I have 
shown the fact, that the Hebrew Scriptures were admitted as 
divine and authoritative by Christ and his apostles. They 
must have had the same difficulties before their minds, that 
we now have. But these did not hinder their forming an 
opinion in favour of the divine origin and authority of the 
Hebrew Scriptures. How can the Old Testament be so vile 
a book as Mr. Norton represents it to be ? Why have not 
Christians of every age been stumbled by it ? And yet they 
have not. In some way or other, they have been brought to 
feel very differently from Mi*. Norton in respect to it. Is it 
that they have had no sensitive consciences? No keen dis- 
cernment of to xctXov and to ttqittov ? I trust not. Mr. 
Norton has scanned Old Testament matters in the light of 
New Testament revelation, and then passed sentence of con- 
demnation upon the imperfect, because it is not perfect. Is 
this equitable dealing ? Is it any proof that sacrifices and 
offerings were not divinely authorized of old, because they 
are abolished now ? Is it any satisfactory objection against 
this or that specific thing in the Old Testament, that the New 
has better arranged or modified it ? Is it conclusive against 
the history or character of David and other potentates, that 
they did things in war, which were common in those days, 
but which the Gospel and a better state of things now forbid ? 

But I have done. Others will doubtless meet Mr. Norton, 
on grounds of this nature which he has occupied. If they 



420 § 22. use or the old testament 

have enlightened and adequate views of the real difference 
between the Christian and the ancient dispensation, they need 
not fear the issue of the contest. How can we properly claim 
wisdom and light so superior to that of the founders of Chris- 
tianity, as to reject the books which they have sanctioned ? 
This is the direct, fair, and simple question. Let those affirm 
that we may make such a claim, who have made up their 
minds, that we are not bound by their decision. I must be- 
lieve, that the disciple is not above his Master. 

One thing is plain from the present state of religious dis- 
pute among us ; and this is, that the time has now come, when 
the advocates of revelation are to be separated from its op- 
posers. How can two walk together, unless they are agreed ? 
I do not say, agreed in all the minutiae — the detail of religious 
sentiments, but in respect to the very basis of all which is 
properly called Christianity. If there be no revelation, there 
is no Christianity ; and if there be a New Testament and a 
Christian religion, then there is an Old Testament which is 
entitled to our high regard, our attentive study, and a listen- 
ing ear. 

It has become plain, that the battle which has been going 
on over most European ground for these forty or fifty years 
past, has at last come even to us, and we can no longer de- 
cline the contest. Unbelief in the Voltaire and the Thomas 
Paine style we have coped with, and in a measure gained the 
victory. But now it comes in the shape of philosophy, lite- 
rature, criticism, philology, knowledge of antiquity, and the 
like. Hume's arguments against miracles, which some had 
thought to be dead and buried, have been exhumed, clothed 
with a new and splendid costume, and commended to the 
world by many among the most learned men in Europe. Be- 
fore these, all revelation falls alike, both Old Testament 
and New. And if Mr. Norton remonstrates, as he does, 
against the sophistry of these arguments, yet he leaves us, af- 
ter all, just where he found us. None of the Old Testament, 
according to him, can be relied on. The New can be trusted 
only in cases where what is said agrees with our own view 



UNDER THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 421 

of things. This is honestly and plainly his simple position. 
I prefer to meet De Wette and Mr, Parker's views. We 
know where to find them. "We cannot well mistake them. 

Will it be taken in good part, (as it is meant), if I say one 
word to another and different class of men? Cum pace omnium. 
I would say : Let those, now, who have stood aloof so long 
as to the matter of acquaintance with German productions, 
ask what is to be done with the contest in hand, in the shape 
that it has assumed. Have we not a right to expect from 
them, at least, that they will show their faith by their works ? 
What I mean is : Have we not a right to expect that they 
will enter into the battle which is going on, clad with the 
panoply of days of yore, which they regard as the only trusty 
armour ? For . one, I will bid God speed to every stroke 
which they may strike in this way, provided it does any exe- 
cution. It does not look well for them to shrink from the 
contest, after all that they have so long and often said to ex- 
cite suspicion of others who. have pursued a somewhat dif- 
ferent course of study, and to cover their names with a kind of 
reproach. The time of trial for both parties (if they must be 
so named) has now come. No one will deny this. For my- 
self, I shall with all my heart rejoice, if they show themselves 
ready and prepared to meet it. At least they have had suf- 
ficient time to make preparation ; and the religious public 
have long since expected something to meet the allegations of 
Mr. Norton. In the meanwhile, I have had other engage- 
ments that must be met, and waited anxiously for some other 
and better advocate of revelation to make his appearance. I 
hope it will not be deemed a matter of reproach to me, that I 
have thought it important for defence, to find out if possible 
whence the armour of our assailants comes, and to meet them, 
if it may be, with arms adapted to new times and new methods 
of attack. I am indeed slow to believe, that we of the present 
day are bound to keep ourselves ignorant of the strength and 
resources of our assailants. The contest has truly become 
one, as I have said, pro aris et focis. The question 
whether Christianity is to be the predominant religion of this 
36 



422 § 22. USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, ETC. 

country, or to yield to philosophic infidelity, is soon to be set- 
tled. Bowed down in some measure under the weight of 
years, and tottering under the long-continued pressure of bod- 
ily infirmities, I have still, perhaps most rashly, thrown my- 
self into the arena of contest ; and there I mean to remain, 
so long as I can wield a weapon however light, or lift up a 
prayer to the great Head of the church for the success of his 
cause. The standard under which I have enlisted waves aloft 
over the battle ground, and bears the inscription in characters 
of light: CHRIST AND THE CHURCH; THE 
NEW TESTAMENT AND THE OLD. I hope 
and trust in God that I shall never — never desert it. 



APPENDIX. 



CONTAINING AND EXHIBITING THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS, EX- 
CEPTING THE NEW TESTAJIENT, TO SHOW WHAT WERE THE 
ANCIENT CANONICAL BOOKS OF THE HEBREWS. 



No. I. 

Prologue to the "Wisdom of Sirach.* 

IloXXav xal [XEydXcov r\\iiv did rov vopov xal rdiv 7TQoq>tjrav 
%ai rmv aXXav rmv y.ar avrovg tjHoZovd'tjy.orcov dedof-ie'vcor, 
V7tsQ d>v Seov iartv inaivsTv rov 'IaoaqX tzaidsiag y.ai Goqtiag' 
xal cog ov fxovov avrovg rovg dvayivaaxovrag ds'ov iarlv imc- 
rrjfiovag yfvEa&at, dXXa xai roig iy.rbg 8vvaa&ai rovg qiiXopa- 
ftovvzag XQt]6i[A,ovg shai xal Xiyovrag y.al yodqiovzag' 6 Ttdn- 
nog fiov 'Irjaovg ml hXeZov savrbv dovg ei'g re rtp rov vopov 
aat rmv nQoqsyjrmv xai rmv dXXmv narqimv fiifiXimv dvayvm- 
giv, xal iv rovroig Ixavjjv e'^iv 7iEQinoirj(jd[iEvog, 7tQorJx&q y.al 
avrog 6vyyod\pai n rmv elg naiOEiav xai aoqiiav dvqy.ovrmv, 
onmg ol qnXo[ia&£ig, y.ai rovrmv 'ivo'fpi ysvofxevoi, noXXco fiaX- 
Xov imTZQog&GJGi did rijg ivvbyiov fiimaEmg. TIaQayJy.Xria&E ovv 
Iter Evvoiag xal TTQogoy^g rrjv dvdyvmaiv tzoieio&cii, y.al avy- 
yvmfxijv 'iyjEiv i(p oig dv doxmfiEv rmv xard rijv SQptjVSiav 7te- 
q)iXo7tov7][XEVov rial rmv Xs&mv ddvvapsiv, ov ydg laodwafXEi 
avrd iv savroig Epoaiarl Xeyopsva, y.al orav fisrax&t} slg its- 
gap yXmoaav. Ov \ibvov oe ravra, dXXa xal avzbg 6 vopog, 
y.al al nQOcpqzeiai, xal rd Xoind rmv ftifiXi'cov ov [iixgdv 'iyu rtjv 
diaqioodv iv iavroTg Xsyofisva. 'Ev ydg roj oydocp xal rgiaxoazcp 

* This Prologue was probably written about 130 B. C. The Book 
itself probably about 180 B. C. 



424 APPENDIX : SIKACH. 

etei im zov Eveoysrov fiaaO.ioig TZUQaysvq&ecg eig A'lyvnzov 
zai ovyyooviaag, evqov ov jj.iy.Qag naidefag dgiofioiov. Jtvay- 
xcuotuzov i&e'fujv avzog TZQogEvsyxao&cu zivd onovdijv xcu 
cpilonoviav zov ixed-rjQiiovevGai z/jvds zrjv fiifilov ' nollijv yaq 
ayQvnviav y.al i711.OT7jj.11jv TTQogereyxdfi evog iv rep diaozijuazi 
rov %qovov TToog ro im nioag dyovza ro fiiftliov ixdoG&cu, 
v.a\ roTg iv zrj naqoiySti fiovlofisvoig yiloiia&tiv, Trooxaza- 
OHSva^ofj-ivoig zd rftij iv vo\icp fitozeveiv. 

English Translation. Since so many and important things 
have been imparted to us by the Law, the Prophets, and other 
[works] of the like kind which have followed, for which one must 
needs praise Israel on account of learning and wisdom; and in- 
asmuch as not only those who read ought to be well-informed, 
but those who are devoted to learning should be able to profit, 
both in the way of speaking and writing, such as are foreigners ; 
my grandfather, Jesus, having devoted himself very much to the 
reading of the Law, the Prophets, and the Other Books of his coun- 
try, and having acquired a good degree of experience in these 
things, was himself led on to compose something pertaining to 
instruction and wisdom, so that those desirous of learning, being 
in possession of these things, might grow much more by a life 
conformed to the Law. 

Ye are invited, therefore, with good will and strict attention 
to make the perusal, and to take notice whenever we may seem 
to lack ability, in respect to any of the words which we have la- 
boured to translate. For things in themselves the same, express- 
ed in Hebrew, have not the same force when they are translated 
into another language. Not only so, but the Law itself, and the 
Prophets, and the remaining Books exhibit no small diversity 
among themselves as to the modes of expression. 

When, in my thirty-eighth year, while Ptolemy Euergetes was 
king, I came to Egypt and took up my residence there, I found 
an exemplar of no small learning. I deemed it altogether ne- 
cessary for myself to appty some diligence and industry to the 
interpretation of this book ; for 1 expended much vigilance and 
study, during that interval of time, that, bringing to an end this 
book, I might publish it for those in a foreign country who wish 
to be learners, and so to regulate their habits as to live in con- 
formity with the Law. 

Eejiarks. It seems somewhat remarkable, that this 
grandson of Sirachides, who appears not to have visited 



APPENDIX: SIKACH. 425 

Egypt until lie was thirty-eight years of age, should not have 
found a copy of his grandfather's book in Palestine ; particu- 
larly since the latter assures us (50: 27), that he was an in- 
habitant or native of Jerusalem. The fact that he wrote in 
Hebrew, is enough to render this altogether probable ; for 
the Egyptian Jews, if we may judge of them by the case of 
Philo the greatest of them all, were moderate proficients in 
this sacred tongue. However, the fact that the Wisdom of 
Sirach had a currency, and probably some weight of author- 
ity in Egypt, falls in well with the history of the other apoc- 
ryphal books. Egypt was the hot-bed in which nearly all of 
these somewhat sickly plants sprang up and were nurtured. 
This was natural. The Palestine Jews were rigid Canonists. 
Even the weight of character and learning which Sirachi- 
des possessed, could give his book no great currency and no 
authority there. There the Jews all partook of the spirit of 
their leaders ; and so it was out of question to add another 
book to the Canon. But the Egyptian Jews were far re- 
moved from the mother country. They had intercourse with 
Greek Schools, philosophers, and literati. Their views of 
canonical limits, were probably less strictly defined, or at 
any rate less rigidly adhered to, than those of their Palestine 
brethren. So, while the grandson of Sirachides found no 
dqofioiov (as he calls it), i. e. no copy, exemplar, or (as one 
might translate) facsimile of his grandfather's work in his 
native land, he found one at Alexandria, where was more of 
a literary taste, and less of the feeling which dictated a rigid 
adherence to the views and traditions of the elders, tiiD^t. 

For the rest, the translator well appreciates the difficulty 
of translating Hebrew into Greek ; confesses his fear of oc- 
casional error, and begs for the indulgence of the reader, as 
well as for the exercise of his discrimination. He does not, 
therefore, lay claim to any inspiration on his part. But how 
is this matter in respect to the author of the book ? The rea- 
der, by referring to p. 241 above, will see, that while he 
omits making a direct claim to the office of a prophet, (which 
he doubtless knew would be controverted and denied), he has 
36* 



426 APPENDIX : SIRACH. 

still intended to be placed at the side of prophets, and take 
rank among the favourite disciples of Solomon. The whole 
Tvork is an ambitious imitation of this king's writings. Even 
the TzarsQcov vfxvog near the close, appears' to have had its 
origin in the eulogy of Wisdom in Prov. viii. Moreover the 
■book has many very fine sayings and sentiments in it. I 
doubt not that it was much better written in Hebrew, than it 
now appears to be in Greek ; and I fully accede to what the 
translator says about his inability adequately to express the 
Hebrew original in the Greek language. The Greek of his 
preface at least, (which of course is all his own), has so near 
an approach to barbarism in its idiom, in the disjointed con- 
nection of the sentences, and in the use of some of the particles 
(e. g. ydo), as to show that the writer expressed himself with 
much difficulty, and in the true style of a foreigner. And so 
it is with much of his translation. Still, it is Hebrew- Greek, 
and even better than some of the Septuagint. I have done 
my best to give the ideas of the preface ; but I have been 
compelled to use some freedom in translating, in order to make 
the version bearable. Whether I have hit the exact shade of 
the original meaning in all cases, is of no importance to my 
present object. That part for which the whole is translated, 
is quite plain and intelligible. 

I cannot refrain from asking here : If the Jews were so fa- 
cile as to the admission of new books into the canon, (e. g. 
Daniel, many of the Psalms, Jonah, etc.), at a period so late 
as the Maccabaean times, how came it about, that the Wis- 
dom of Sirach, written at Jerusalem and before these times, 
and making, as we have seen, no small claims on admission 
to an elevated place, was not even to be found in Palestine 
some fifty years after this, but was lighted upon only among 
the distant Egyptians ? Consistency is a jewel of some val- 
ue ; and if so, why do not those confident neological critics, 
who so often hoist the standard on which is inscribed MAC- 
CABAEAN, and fight in earnest under this banner, — why 
do they not show us some good and satisfactory reason for the 
exclusion of such books as the ^ocpi'a £etod% from the Pales- 



appendix: sntACH. 427 

tine canon (and even the Jewish Egyptian one), while books 
which they place far below this, now occupy, and for more 
than 1900 years (as they concede) have occupied a place 
among the sacred Scriptures of the Jews ? The whole af- 
fair makes greatly against their confident assumptions. 

I have only to remark, that in the first sentence of the 
Prologue, if noo(pr t zv)v be regarded as referring to prophetical 
books, (and so I have taken it), then the allmv which follows 
must also mean other books. I suppose the rjxoXov&tfAozojv, 
in this case, to refer to the order of arrangement in the Ca- 
non, which had been and still continued, (the appropriate 
sense of the Perf.), rather than to the time of writing. Pro- 
phets, according to the Hebrew idiom, were all the writers of 
the Scriptures ; so that nQOcpijzbiv specially if compared with 
the preceding vo t uov, would seem to mean the books so-called, 
in the case before us. But still the participle dxoXov&qxo- 
zav may appear rather to indicate persons who followed the 
so-called prophets (also considered as persons), if we look to 
the y.az avzovg by which it is accompanied. So De "Wette 
has taken it. I do not consider this construction, however, 
as being certain ; for the gender of avzovg, if it refers to 
books, would in this case be regulated by its antecedent ngo- 
(fijzdJv. In case prophets means persons, then the prophets, 
who were the authors of the books belonging to the Old 
Testament which bear their names, are meant, and the others 
who have followed must mean other writers of the Jewish 
Scriptures who lived after them. But this can be understood 
only as to the greater portion of them ; for Haggai, Zechariah, 
and in particular Malachi, have always been regarded by the 
Jews as among the latest writers in their canon. Difficulties 
therefore lie in the way of De Wette's interpretation. Anal- 
ogy with the passage in the second sentence — " the law, the 
prophets, and the other patrical books" — would rather plead 
for the interpretation which I have put upon the passage, 
notwithstanding the difficulty in respect to the participle uxo- 
XovOi^/.ozmv. 

Finally, zdjp dXlav narqiav fiip.ioiv, with the definite ar- 



428 appendix: philo. 

tide prefixed, and placed by the side of rov vo\iov and zwv 
7tQ0<fr t rav which must in their very nature be definite, does 
beyond all reasonable doubt limit the other hooks in question 
here, to the complement or remainder of the books which 
made up the holy Scriptures. The triplex division, there- 
fore, as in later times, lies on the very face of this whole rep- 
resentation. The nature of the appeal takes it for granted, 
that tbis was well known, and would be universally under- 
stood. Of course, the usage of thus dividing the Scriptures, 
must have been established for a considerable period, anterior 
to that in wbich the translator wrote, and anterior to the age 
of his grand-father. 



No. n. 

Passages in the Vita Contemplativa of Philo Judaeus. — Opp. H. p. 475 
edit. Mangey. (flor. A. D. 40.) 

Philo, in praising a contemplative life and in giving vari- 
ous examples of it, comes at last to the Therapeutae or Esse- 
nes (= b*A&6t , medici, healers), whose devotional practices be 
thus describes : Ev sy.ciGzrj ds or/ua hqov, o y.aXetzai csfivstov 

•/Ml flOVaGTTjQIOV, IV Cp flOVOVflEfOl ZU ZOV GEflVOV §10V pVGZtj- 

qiu zeXovvzui • {iqS&p siay.ofiL^opzeg, \ty\ nozov, [i.rj Gtzov, f/?]dtv 
zi zcov dXXcov oca nqog zdg rov Gcofiazog XQ £ ^ dvayxaia, 
dXXd vofxovg, nal Xdyia &EGmG&(vza did Tiqoqinzcov, y.al v\i- 
vovg y.cu zd dXXa olg misz-qpfq y.cu evce'pia Gvvav^ovzai y.cu, 

zeXeiovvzui EvTvy^dvovteg ydo zolg i£QoTg yqd\i\iaGi, 

qiloGoqovGi iijv ndrqiov (piXoaocpiav dXXriyoqovvzEg, ineidtj 
cv^oXa zd ztjg qrjzijg sQfi?]veiug voptiQovGi cpvGEcog dnoy.ey.Qv- 
\iiivrfi, iv VTiovoiuig 8)jXov[xt'v}]g. "Egzi ds avzoTg nal Gvyyodfi- 
fiaza naXaiav avdooiv, ol zrjg atosGecog d,q'fr\yizai yEVOfXEVot, 
TtoXXa \nvri\Lua zr t g dXXsyoQovfiEvtjg idiag aniXmov. 

Translation. In every house is a sanctuary, which is called 
sacred place or monastery, in which, being alone, they perform 
the mysteries of a holy life ; introducing nothing into it, neither 
drink, nor bread-corn, nor any of the other things which are ne- 
cessary for the wants of the body, but the laws, and oracles pre- 



APPENDIX : PHILO. 429 

dieted by the prophets, and hymns and other [ivritings] by which 
knowledge and piety are increased and perfected. . . . Address- 
ing themselves to the sacred writings they philosophize their 
country's philosophy, interpreting allegorically, inasmuch as they 
regard those things which admit a plain interpretation, as sym- 
bols of something that is hidden and is indicated merely by 
VTtovoia, [i. e. an under or secondary meaning]. They have also 
writings of their elders, who, being leaders of the sect, left many 
monuments of their allegorical notions. 

A doubt has been raised here, whether hymns and other 
[writings'] by which knowledge and piety are increased and 
perfected, is meant to designate a portion of the Scriptures.- 
I do not see that there is good room, however, for reasonable 
doubt. The intimate junction of these with the Law and 
the Prophets ; the manner in which their contents are de- 
scribed ; and above all, the express distinction between these 
books and others which were peculiar to the sect of the Es- 
senes, and which were composed by the elders and leaders of 
the sect, make it quite plain that the hymns and other writ- 
ings belonged to the Scriptures. Even if these circumstances 
did not decide the case, the fact that Philo, immediately after 
having mentioned these three classes of books, speaks of them 
as ieqa, yodiiiiara, sacred writings, decides the point. In the 
days of Philo, then, the Jewish Scriptures in the. hands of 
the Therapeutae consisted of three great divisions, in the 
same manner as we have seen in the book of Sirach. No 
intimation is anywhere given, that the Essenes had a diffe- 
rent Canon from that of the other Jews. Indeed, all the 
knowledge we have of them, would lead us to reject this idea. 
And as the sect was ancient, and rigidly adhered to the prac- 
tices of their fathers, we may well draw the conclusion, that 
the triplex division of Scripture here described by Philo, had 
long existed in the usages of the Jewish nation. 



No. IH. 

Passage from Josephus, contra Apionem, Lib. I. § 8. (Born A. D. 37.) 
Ov yc'.Q [tvgiddes ptfiXiav eiol nuq tj^Xv, uavficpojvcov xal 



480 appendix: josephus. 

/uaxofisvwp • dvo ds \idva Ttqbg zoig si'xoai Bifilia, zov rtavzbg 
'iypvza xqovov zrjv dvaygaq)t]i>, zd dixaioog Qua nsmazsviiiva, 
Kal zovzcov nsvzs \iiv iazi zd MovGscog, a zovg zs vopovg 
tieqis'xsi,, xal zrjv zrjg dv&QCOTtoyoviag maoddooiv (jis%qi zijg av- 
tov zslsvzijg. Ovzog 6 iqovog dnoksiTtsi ZQi<3%ilib3v oliyov 
srcov. 'Anb ds zfjg Meovascog zslsvzrig iii%Qi zrjg Aqza^sQ^ov 
zov fxszd £§QJ~t]V UsQacov fiaads'cog aqpig [aQX'ijg is omitted in 
Euseb.], ol \iszd Mavarjv TTQoqitjzac ta xaz avzovg nqai&iv- 
ta cvvsyqaipav iv zqigI xal ds'xa ftiftlioig. At ds lomai zia- 
GaQsg vfivovg elg zbv dsbv xal zoig dvOQcoTzoig -imo&iqxag zov 
§iov tzs'qi e%ovaiv. Atzo ds Aqza^sQ^ov fJiixqi zov xatf fyag 
%q6vov, ysyqanzai ply sxaaza • mazscog ds ov% bfioiag iffioozas 
roig tzqo avzav, did zb \iy\ ysvsa&ai zip zwv TZQocp^zoZv dxqi- 
@ij diado^v. Aifkov d" 'iaziv sqycp rzwg r^isTg zoTg idioig yod[i- 
[A,aai, aemazevxafiev, zoaovzo yuq aicovog tjdi] TiaqonyilY-bzog, 
outs TtQoadsTvai zig ovdsv, ovzs dcpzlsiv avzeov, ovzs {isza&ei- 
vai zszol/j-tjxev. Ildai ds GVfiqivzov iaziv sv&vg ix zijg tiqo)- 
zng ysviascog 'Iovdaioig, zb vo(xit,siv avzd Ssov doy/iaza, xai 
zovtoig ififiivsiv, xal vtzsq avzeov si dioi &ijgxeiv ijdiojg. 

Translation. We have not a countless number of books, 
discordant and arrayed against each other; but only too and 
twenty books, containing the history of every age, which are just- 
ly accredited as divine [old editions of Josephus read merely : 
" which are justly accredited" — dsia comes from Eusebius' tran- 
script of Josephus in Ecc. Hist. III. 10] ; and of these, five be- 
long to Moses, which contain both the laws and the history of 
the generations of men until his death. This period lacks but 
little of 3000 years. From the death of Moses, moreover, until 
the reign of Artaxerxes, [Euseb. — ' from the death of Moses to 
that of Artaxerxes' — and so most of the Codices omitting dqxrjg, 
reign], king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets who fol- 
lowed Moses have described the things which were done during 
the age of each one respectively, in thirteen books. The remain- 
ing four contain hymns to God, and rules of life for men. From 
the time of Artaxerxes, moreover, until our present period, all 
occurrences have been written down ; but they are not regarded 
as entitled to the like credit with those which precede them, because 
there ivas no certain succession of prophets. Fact has shown what 
confidence we place in our own writings. For although so ma- 
ny ages have passed away, no one has dared to add to them, nor 



appendix: josephus. 431 

to take anything from them, nor to make alterations. In all Jews 
it is implanted, even from their birth, to regard them as being 
the instructions of God, and to abide steadfastly by them, and if 
it be necessary to die gladly for them. 

Remarks on this passage are unnecessary, as they are so 
fully made in the preceding pages, viz. p. 223 seq. Of all 
the testimony among ancient writers about the Old Testa- 
ment, this is unquestionably the most important. The intel- 
ligence, the connections, the official character, and the integ- 
rity of Josephus, all conspire to render him worthy of the most 
entire credit. The matter is not one about which he could 
be in doubt, when he speaks the views and feelings of his 
countrymen. The latter part of his testimony makes it quite 
certain, that he did so speak ; for he tells us explicitly what 
the views and feelings of the Jews had always been, in refer- 
ence to their sacred books. To say as Herbst, many other 
Romanists, and some of the Neologists do, that Josephus only 
gives us his own private opinion, is saying what is contra- 
dicted by his own explicit statement. The appeal to the 
Talmud, rather than to him, to determine the ancient number 
of the sacred books, respectively contained in the division ef 
the Prophets and of the Hagiography, is altogether uncritical 
and inadmissible. The admission of such an appeal by Geo- 
logists, in order to maintain their favourite views about the 
lateness of Daniel and the Chronicles, shows fully that the 
spirit of party and of prejudice is not by anj means confined 
to the so-called Orthodox. 



No. TV. 

Testimony of Melito. bishop of Sardis, (flor. A. D, 170), presented by 
Eusebius in his Historia Ecc. Lib. IV. c. 26. 

MeXitcw 'Opqaifiq} raj u8eX<pq> %ai(jEa>' ineidrj 7Zo7.Xdy.ig ?j%- 
i(ooag anovdfi r\] noog top loyov yoo'mevog yevio&ai aoi iy.).o- 
ydg, sx rs zov ro'fiov y.ai zcor 7iQoqr t z6)v tzeqI zov oaziJQog y.al 
Tzdo^g zijg niaztag rjjiaj) • hi ds xat fia&siv zr t v zav nalamv 



432 appendix: melito. 

fitfiXioiv ifiovfaj&qg axQt'fieiuv, noaa zov doi&nbv Hat onoia z?jv 
rd%iv eiev, ioTtovdaaa zb zoiovzo nodl^ai, eniGzd\ievbg gov zb 
G7zovdaiov neql r>)v ttigziv, xal (pilofjiadeg neol rbv Xoyov ' 
on re \idXiGza ndvzojv noQty zw nobg Qebv zavza nooxQiveig, 
tibqI z)jg alarlov GcoztjQiag dyoivi^bfievog ' dveX&av ovv elg 
rijv dvazoXr t v, xal lag rov ronov jevofievog ev&a ixtftyv%drq 
xal i7Z()dx&>j, xal axQifiaig fia&mv zd rijg naXaidg dia&ijxqg 
ptfiXia, vnozdiag ene^wd goi ■ ojv sgzi zd ovb\iaza • Mcov- 
ot'cog nivxe • jt'veoig, t^odog, Xevirixbv, uoi&fiol, dsvzeoovo- 
fxiov . 'IijGovg iYav>j, Kqizcu, 'Povti, BaGiXeidiv zeGGaqa, na- 
QaXemoi-isvcov dvo. '"-P'aXfiojv /Jafiid, ^oXofiavog Tiaqoijuai 
■}j xju GO(fta, exxXtjGiaGz^g, aGfia aGfxazoiv, '/cop? * Tloocpuzmv, 
'Hodiov, 'leqefiiov, zuv daidexa it> {WVofiifiXq), Aavirfk, 'Ie£e- 
xd t X, Eodoag ■ i$ d>v xai rag ixXoydg inoitjadfiijv, elg «§ fiifi- 
Xia dieXcov. 

Translation. Melito to Onesimus his brother, greeting. 
Since you have often requested, through the earnest desire that 
you cherish for the word [of God], that you might have a selec- 
tion made for you from the Law and the Prophets, which has 
respect to our Saviour and the whole of our faith ; and since 
moreover you have been desirous to obtain an accurate account 
of the ancient books, both as to their number and their order ; I 
have taken pains to accomplish this, knowing your earnestness 
in respect to the faith, and your desire for instruction in regard 
to the word ; and most of all, that you, while striving after eter- 
nal salvation, through desires after God, give a preference to 
these things. Making a journey therefore into the east [Pales- 
tine], and having arrived at the place where these things [i. e. 
scriptural events] were proclaimed and transacted, I there learn- 
ed accurately the books of the Old Testament, which I here ar- 
range and transmit to you. The names are as follows : The five 
books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuter- 
onomy. Then Joshua of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of 
Kings, two of Chronicles. The Psalms of David, the Proverbs 
of Solomon (also called Wisdom), Ecclesiastes, the Song of 
Songs, Job. Prophets : Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve in one 
book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. From these I have made selections, 
distributing them into six books. 

Remarks on this passage, sufficiently copious, the reader 
will find on pp. 258 seq. above. As the earliest Christian 



appendix: OPviGEN. 433 

writer who lias given us a list of the Old Test, books, and a3 
a man of much learning and distinguished piety, his testimony- 
deserves special consideration. 



No. V. 

Testimony of Origen, preserved in Eusebins' Hist. Ecc. Lib. IV. c. 25. 

Top fiEV tor/a ngcozop ihjyoi'iisvog Walf/ov, sx&sgiv nsnoi- 
ryzai (Tlgrytv^g) zov rcov hgcov ygacfcop zijs aaXatug dia{yf t xrjg: 
y.azaXoyov, cooV noig ygdrfcov y.azu Xihv • „ovx ayvoifeiov 8' 
thai tug trdia&i^y.ovg fit'ft.ovg, cog Efigaioi 7zuga8i8ouGiv, 8vo 
v.a\ tr/.oGi' oaog 6 dgi&nbg t-cop nag avzoig gtoixeicop sgzi'v. 1 ' 
Elza fiSTU, ztva intqiget Xtycop ■ „tiol 8s ui er/.ooi 8vo pf/'pfZot 
y.a&' Efigaiovg aide • r\ nag qfiiv rivsGig lmyr/Qanuhr t , na- 
gd 8s 'Eftgaioig dno rr t g dgyr t g zrjg pifllov B q i; gi & , otzsq 
ioziv ip UQXV ' "E$o8og, OvuX£Gfico&, oneg iati ravza za 
ovojiata- Atvizr/.ov, vi'y. q a , y.ai ixdlsGsv 'Agi&fiol, 
'A fi fis GCp f y. co 8 s i ft - /Jtvztgovopiov, "EXXs a 8 8 e ft a- 
glfx, ovzoi ol Xoyoi • 'IijGovg vtog I\favq, T a govs psv 
Novv Kgirai, Pov&, nag avzoig iv ivi, JZcocpsrifi' 
BaGiXticop ngcozr p Stvzigcc, nag' avroig iv 2 a fio v i\ X, 6 -&s- 
oy.Xtjzog • BaGiXsicop tgt'zi;, zszdgzi], iv ivi, Ova/Aft eXs% 
J a |j i 8, dntg taz) {SugiXeicop Ju^i8 • IlagaX£ino[.iu'cop ngc6~ 
rtj, Ssvzsga, h> in, A i p 1 g /; d'i a fit //, onsg egzI Xoyot rjfis- 
gcov "EoSgug ngcorog y.ai 8tiztgog ip in, E^gd, o egzi 
fiot;{rog ' (lifiXog WaXucop, Zsqsg QiXXifi- ^oXo/icopzog 
Ilagoifii'ai, M i gXco&- "ExxXyGiaGzqg, Kco iXs& • ciGfia 
uGfidzcop, 2. } g ctGGtQtfi- 'HGuiag, 7 eg aid- 'iegsfiiag 
gvp -ftgipoig y.a) r/] irziGzoXij, iv iv), 'I Eg £ pi a' Aavir^X, 
AavkTjX. 'le&xiqX, T s £ sy.irjX - '/cop , '/oip 1 - 'EG&rjg, 'E g- 
■&Tjg . "Eico 8i rovzeov ioz) za Muy.y.c/Jai'y.u, dmg invyiygan- 
zai J£agfit;& g ag ft avs iX. 

Translation. In explaining tbe first Psalm, he [Origen] sets 
forth a catalogical view of the sacred books of the Old Testa- 
ment ; describing them in the following manner : " One must 
not be ignorant, that there are twenty-two books of the covenant, 
as the Hebrews reckon them; which is the number of letters in 
37 



434 appendix: origen-. 

their alphabet." Then, after some remarks, he adds : " Moreo- 
ver the hventy-two books of the Hebrews are these ; the book en- 
titled Genesis by us, but by the Hebrews Bresith, from the be- 
ginning of the book, for this means in the beginning ; Exodus, 
Oualesmoth, i. e. these are the names ; Leviticus, Ouikra, i. e. 
and he called ; Numbers, Ammesphekodim ; Deuteronomy, Elle 
Haddebarim, i. e. these are the words ; Joshua the son of Nun, 
Josue ben Noun ; Judges, Ruth, with them [the Hebrews] in 
one, Sophetim ; Kings first and second, among them one, Sam- 
owe/, the called of God ; Kings third and fourth in one, Ouamme- 
lech David, i. e. the reign of David ; Chronicles (or Supplement) 
first and second, iu one, Dibre Aiamim, i. e. accounts of the 
times; Ezra first and second, in one, Ezra, Which means helper; 
the book of Psalms, Sepher Thillim ; the Proverbs of Solomon, 
Misloth ; Ecclesiastes, Koeleth ; the Song of Songs, Sir Hassir- 
im ; Isaiah, Jesaia ; Jeremiah with Lamentations and the epis- 
tle, in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel ; Ezekiel, Ieezkel ; Job, Job ; 
Esther, Esther. Besides these, there are the Maccabees, which 
are inscribed Sarbeth Sarbene El. 

The names in Italic, are the representatives of the Hebrew 
names of the books. Of the twenty-two books, said by Ori- 
gen to belong to Hebrew Scriptures, he produces (as related 
by Eusebius), only twenty-one. But there can be no doubt 
that this is an error either in the copy of Eusebius, or of some 
of his transcribers. (See on this subject p. 260 above). The 
fact that Rufinus, in his translation of Origen, specifies the 
Twelve Minor Prophets (in one book, as always in ancient 
times), which are omitted in the catalogue above, and also the 
nature of the case, (since Origen has said that there are twen- 
ty-two books), make it entirely clear that Origen's catalogue 
originally contained, or was intended to contain, the Prophets 
in question. 

In respect to the Maccabees, the Hebrew title which Ori- 
gen has given it, (the first book only is meant), shows that he 
was acquainted with the work in Hebrew ; in which, no doubt, 
it was originally composed. So says Jerome : " Maccabaeo- 
rum primum librum Hebraicum reperi. Secundus Graecus 
est ; quod ex ipsa quoque phrasi probari potest ; i. e. The 
first book of the Maccabees I found in Hebrew. The second 






APPENDIX : ORIGEN. 435 

Is Greek ; which is evident from its phraseology." In Prol. 
Galeato. This is the reason why Origen speaks of it as be- 
ing among the books of the Hebrews. But he expressly 
separates it from their canonical books : t^co de zovzcov x. r. L 
To count upon Origen as including the Maccabees in his Ca- 
non, as Herbst does, is strange enough, after Origen himself 
has separated it by an i^co, i. e. extrinsic, abroad, foreign. 
In respect to the meaning of the Hebrew title, as given in 
the unskilful manner of Origen, Avho makes the Greek letters 
the representatives of it, not improbably it may be : History 
of the Princes of the sons of God, i. e. >X "rrs i"tj r,sy3, the 
first word being employed in its Aramaean sense ; which 
would be no improbability, at the time when the book was 
written. Other explanations may be seen in Eichh. Einl. IV. 
p. 222 ; but they are less probable. The princes seem to be 
the Maccabaean leaders, and the so?is of God means the party 
of the pious who clave to these leaders. There was another 
apocryphal book, also, extant probably in Hebrew, in Origen's 
day, namely, the "Wisdom of Sirach. But he does not appear 
to have seen anything but the Greek copy, when he wrote the 
catalogue above. 

I would merely remark at the close, that Origen, from his 
long continued critical study of the Scriptures, his enlightened 
views in relation to this subject, his integrity, and his long 
residence both in Egypt and in Palestine, must have fully 
known what the Jews in general, in both countries, thought 
in respect to their Canon. One difficulty only remains. This 
is, that Origen not only includes Lamentations with Jeremiah, 
but also an epistle, or rather the epistle. What is this ? Is it 
the so-called Epistle of Jeremiah to the captives at Babylon, 
which constitutes one of the apocryphal books, and consists 
of seventy-three verses ? So the Romanists affirm. But of 
this I must doubt ; because no other ancient list of the sacred 
books has comprised this with Jeremiah and Lamentations, 
excepting such as appear to be copied from him. That Jere- 
miah wrote letters to the exiled Jews, is certain ; see Jer. 
xxix. That some of his predictions were written by Baruch 



436 ArPENDix : origen. 

separately, is plain from Jer. xxxvi. I cannot but feel, that 
some of the epistles named in the book of Jeremiah were 
added to it, at least in the copy which Origen had, in the 
way of an appendage, instead of being incorporated with the 
main body of the work. In the time of Jerome, the apocry- 
phal Epistle of Jeremiah, as Herbst confesses (Einl. p. 14), 
was incorporated with Baruch, as a sixth chapter, (and so of- 
tentimes since) ; and yet of this Jerome says expressly : 
" Librum Baruch, qui apud Hebraeos nee legitur nee habetur, 
praetermisimus, i. e. the book of Baruch, which the Hebrews 
neither read nor possess, we pass by." We must, therefore, 
either attribute error to Origen in respect to the Epistle in 
question, or explain it in some such way as I have done. The 
Council of Laodicea, as will be seen in the sequel, Hilary, 
also Cyrill of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Synopsis Scripturae 
(in Opp. Athanas.), all exhibit the same, or the like difficul- 
ties, in regard to the component parts of Jeremiah, probably 
copying in this respect the representation of Origen. The 
disjointed and as it were fragmentary state of Jeremiah in an- 
cient times, (witness the Septuagint Version), is in all proba- 
bility the basis of this peculiarity in some of the ancient lists 
of the scriptural books. The matter has not yet been fully 
cleared up ; but the weight of testimony is altogether against 
the supposition of an apocryphal book being meant. 



No. VI. 

List of canonical Books as made out by the Council of Laodicea ; 
(between A. D. 360—364.) 

Can. 59. "Oxi ov del idicorr/.ovg ipalfiovg Xt'ysc&ou iv ttj «x- 
•Alyaia, ovds dxavoviova fiifilia, dlld fiova ta xavovixik rijg 
xaivtjg xal nalaidg dia^y^g. Can. 60. "Oaa del ftiftlta dva- 
yivojaxea&ai rrjg naXaiag 8ia&)]x}jg • a, riveaig xoapov. ft , 
"E^odog £§ 'Aiyvrttov. y, Azvitmov. 8', 'Aqi&iioi. t, Azv- 
TSQovof-uov. oV, 'Ir t covg Navfj. t,', KgiraL 'Pov&. t], Ea- 
@rjQ. it', Baaikeunv a, §' '. i, Baoikemv y , d'. id, Tlaga- 



APPENDIX : COUNCIL OP LAODICEA. 437 

Xsinofieva a, p 1 '. tfi', "Ecdoag, d,§'. ty, pYp&oc ipal[iwv qv, 
id', naQoifuai ZaXopaviog. i(, 'Ey.xXr t 6iaGTi'ig. tor, Ad- 
fia aanaTcav. *£', '/cop 1 . «/, /liadv/.a nQoqrjzai. i&', 'Heat- 
as. n' , 'ltQS[iiag xat Baqovfc &Q>jvoi y.ai imaroXai. aa, 
Is&xu'jL y.fi', AavnqX. 

Translation. Canon 59. Private Psalms must not be read 
in the church, nor uncanonical books, but only the canonical 
ones of the New and Old Testaments. Canon 60. The books 
of the Old Testament which ought to be read: (1) Genesis of 
the world. (2) Exodus from Egypt. (3) Leviticus. (4) Num- 
bers. (5) Deuteronomy. (6) Joshua of Nun. (7) Judges, Ruth. 
(8) Esther. (9) I. Kings, first and second [I. and II. Samuel]. 
(10) II. Kings, first and second. (11) Chronicles, first and sec- 
ond. (12) Ezra, first and second [i. e. Ezra and Nehemiah]. 
(13) The book of Psalms, 150. (14) Proverbs of Solomon. 
(15) Ecclesiastes. (16) Song of Songs. (17) Job. (18) Twelve 
Prophets. (19) Isaiah. (20) Jeremiah and Baruch, the Lamen- 
tations and the Epistles. (21) Ezekiel. (22) Daniel. 

The Hagiography are here all put in junction together; 
Chronicles is joined with the historical books ; Esther is 
placed before them ; Job after the Hagiography ; the twelve 
Prophets before the others ; and Daniel along with them ; as 
in our Bibles. But as this Council used the Septuagint, we 
cannot say with certainty that they followed any of the usual 
Hebrew copies in arrangement. How near they come to Ori- 
gen, is plain from the peculiar alleged contents of the book of 
Jeremiah. Baruch and the (apocryphal ?) Epistle both are 
included. These were probably now joined in one book, 
(as in Jerome's time), and so they are here named. The so- 
lution of this phenomenon which appears most probable to me, 
I have already given in my remarks on the list of Origen. 



No. VJX 



Cyrill of Jerusalem, (flor. A. D. 350), in Hierosol. Catechesis, IV. No. 
33—36. Opp. p. 69. edit. Touttei. 

* 4t>ayivco<jx,£ rag &siag ygaqidg, rag si'y.oai dvo filfiXovg rrjg 
aaXaidg 8ia&/jyjjg, zdg vnb tcov s^So^xovra dvo sq^tjvevzwv 
37* 



438 appendix: cteill. 

sQfit]vsv&£i(jag. Tov vofiov fisv ydq slaw at Mco- 

osmg 7TQ(ozai rtsvzs fii'filoi. i&jg ds, 'Itjoovg vlog A r avrj, 

xcu zojv Kqizcov [iszd zfjg 'Pov& fiifih'ov ifidopov v.Qi&fiov[i£- 
vov, zap ds lotnav iazoQixap fitfih'av, noazt] xcu dsvzsQa zap 
ftacilsiav, \iia rzaq 'Epoaioig iazi fiifilog ' fiia ds xcu rj zqizr\ 
xcu rj zszdgztj • opolag ds naq avzoTg xcu zav naQalsinons- 
vav q 7tQcoz7] xcu rj dsvzsQa, iila. rvyydpsi, fttfilog, xcu tov "E<s- 
doa i] TTQohrj xcu q dsvziqa, (iia Xsloyiazai • dadsxdzi] fil§!og 
7] 'Eo&qQ. xcu za psv lozoqixa zavza. za ds 6zoi%ijQa 
zvyydvsi nsvzs, 'Ia§, xcu (tifiXo'g Walpav, xal IlaQOijiiai, xal 
Exy.ltfGiaazi/jg, xai cio~{ia aofidzap, mzaxaidsxazov ftifillov ' 
im ds zovzoig zdmQocprizixd nsvzs ■ rmv dadsxa rtQocpi]- 
zav [At'a ftt'filog, xai 'Hoatov {da, xcu 'Ieqepiov psza Baqov% 
xal &Q)jp<x>v xcu iMaioXrjg • siza 'Is&xitjX • xal t) zov AavupX 
uxoGzrfisvzsqa fiifilog zrjg nakalag dia&tjxrjg. 

Translation. Make yourself well acquainted with the divine 
Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which 
were translated by the seventy-two interpreters. . . . The first 
five books are of Moses, which is the Law. . . . Then comes 
Joshua of Nun ; Judges with Ruth, numbered the seventh book ; 
of the remaining historical books, first and second of Kings 
[I. JJ. Sam.], one book among the Hebrews. One also is the 
third and fourth of Kings ; with them also the Chronicles, first 
and second, are one book; the first and second of Ezra [Ez. 
Neh.] are reckoned as one ; the twelfth book is Esther ; and 
these are the historical ones. The poetical books are five ; viz. 
Job, the book of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song 
of Songs, the seventeenth book. To these must be added five 
prophetic ones ; the twelve Prophets, one book ; one also of 
Isaiah; of Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle ; 
then Ezekiel ; and Daniel, the twenty-second book of the Old 
Testament. 

Here is a different arrangement still, Avhich is the same for 
the most part as in our present English Bibles. The only 
exception is, that the Minor Prophets are placed before the 
others. The books of the Hagiography, as described by Jose- 
phus, are here all associated and called ozor^Qa, i. e. mea- 
sured, in metre, or poetic. The same difficulty also appears 
here, as in the Canon of the Laodicean Council, in respect 



APPENDIX : GREGORY. 439 

to the constituent parts of Jeremiah. I have nothing more to 
say concerning this difficulty, than what I have already said. 
The list of books was evidently copied from the like source 
with the list of the Council, i. e. it was probably made out 
from Origen's Catalogue. 



No. vm. 

Gregory Naziauzen (flor. 370), Opp. II. Carmina, X X X III. 
In this 33d Carmen or sacred Ode, Gregory has underta- 
ken, in accordance with the taste and fancy of the times, to 
throw the names of all the sacred books into measured verse. 
He thus proceeds with the Old Testament: 

'IaroQiy.al ftsv 'iaai fiifiloi Svozaidexa ndaai, 
Tijg dnyaiozen^g 'E§Qouxijg oocfi'i t g. 
IIqojzigt}! rivsGig, fir E'Sodog, Aevinxovre, 
"Eneiz ^Qid-pol, elza SevzeQog No'pog'. 
"Ettzit 'Iffaovg, y.ai Kqitcu ■ Pov& oydotj ■ 
K H de Irani dexdzt] ze (JtfiXoi, tzQaieig BaGilrjmv, 
Kal naoa).ei7z6 t usrai • eoyazov "Eadqav s%eig. 
Al 8t GtifflQcu ntvze, cov TiQcozog ye lotf, 
"Eneiza Aavt'd, eiza rgetg ^olouwvzeiai, 
Ey.y.h\Giaozr t g, dona, y.ai izagoifiiai. 
Kai Tiivif oftoioog 7zvsv[xazog nQOcpjziy.ov ■ 
Miav iiev eloiv ig ynacp.v ol dcodey.a, 
£}(>) t t', y.ai 1(4(1(0$, y.ai Mryaiag 6 ZQizog, 
"Ennz 'Iioi' t 7., dz 'Iardg, 'Afidiag, 
Naoifi ze, 'A^a.y.ovu re, y.ai JEoyoviag, 
lAyyaTog, elza Zayanfag, Malay tag • 
Mia (iev oide. Aevze'ga be 'Haatag, 
"E7Tei{y 6 xXtj-Q-eig 'IsQeptag ex pQt'yovg, 
Eiz 'is^ExirjX, y.ai Aaru'jlov '/d-Qig- 
'Anyaiag ;ih> e&tjy.a dvco y.ai ely.ooi fit'p.ovg, 
Toig zcov Efiocuwv yodiiuaoiv dvzt&e'zovg. 

Translation. All the historical hooks are twelve, of the an- 
cient Hebresv wisdom. First Genesis, then Exodus, and Levit- 



440 APPENDIX : GREGORY. 

icus, then Numbers, then Deuteronomy. Then Joshua, and 
Judges ; Ruth is the eighth ; the ninth and tenth books are the 
acts of Kings; then Chronicles; the last is Ezra. There ate Jive 
books in metre ; the first of which is Job, then David [Psalms], 
three belong to Solomon, viz., Ecc, Canticles, Proverbs. In like 
manner there are Jive of the prophetic Spirit ; twelve of these are 
comprised in one, viz. Hosea, Amos, Micah, then Joel, Jonah, 
Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniab, Haggai, Zechariah, and 
Malachi ; these make the first. The second is Isaiah, then Jer- 
emiah who was called from the womb, Ezekiel, and the grace 
of Dauiel. I have exhibited twenty-two books, corresponding 
with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrews. 

It will be perceived, that in making out twenty-two books, 
Gregory has separated Ruth from Judges, and omitted Es- 
ther. The same omission we find in Athanasius, and in some 
other cases ; but the testimony of Josephus, and of the feast 
of Purim, in behalf of the antiquity of this book, place it be- 
yond our reach to call in question its place in the Canon. 
We have found the same omission in Melito, (p. 259 seq.), 
but have supposed it to belong, in that case, merely to error 
in transcribing. In Melito and in Gregory, Ezra no doubt 
comprehends Nehemiah; for such was the usual custom of 
the ancients. But in Gregory, there is an evident purpose 
of omitting Esther ; for he has separated Judges and Ruth, in 
order to make out the twenty-two books which are the usual 
number. It is difficult to say what was the inducement to 
this, unless it was, that the Greek copy of the Scriptures in 
his hands, embraced Esther with all the Alexandrine inter- 
polations. No wonder he (having no acquaintance with the 
Hebrews) rejected it, if such were the case. Not a word in 
Gregory about any of the apocliryplial books ; and yet he en- 
titles his Ode : tieqi rav yvqoicov §tfiliov zrjg ■&tonvtvGzov 
rQaqjtjg, i. e. concerning the genuine books of the inspired 
Scriptures. Of course he regards books not named, as. not 
belonging to this category ; and therefore he must have re- 
jected the Apocrypha. 

One other thing is worthy of note here, viz., that both Cy- 
rill of Jerusalem and Gregory Nazianzen make a triplex di- 



ArPENDIX: ATHANASIUS. 441 

vision of the Scriptures ; but not on Talmudic ground. They 
divide them into twelve historical, five poetical, and &vq pro- 
phetical books ; for, on the ground of their ignorance of the 
true nature of Hebrew poetry, they never dreamed that the 
prophets were mostly poetic. Their division is not a bad one, 
inasmuch as it is built on the matter and manner of the books ; 
with the exception of their error about the form of prophetic 
composition. It is substantially adopted in our English Bi- 
bles. Let the reader note well, in examining all these lists 
of the Old Testament Books, that not one of them join Chro- 
nicles or Daniel with the Kethubim or Hagiography. 



No. IX. 

Athanasius of Alexandria (flor. A. D. 326), in an extract from his 37th 
festal Epistle, inserted in Opp. I. p. 961. 

Athanasius prefaces his list of Sacred Books by the follow- 
ing remarks : 

"We fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, a few of the 
simple may wander away from their simplicity and purity by 
reason of the craftiness of certain men, and finally may begin to 
take themselves to the books called apocryphal, being deceived 
by their likeness to the true books. I beseech you to bear with 
me, if I write to you reminding you of things already known, 
on account of the necessity and the edification of the church. 
Being about to do this, I shall employ, for the support of my 
undertaking, the formula of Luke the evangelist, saying as he 
did: Forasmuch as there are some who have undertaken to 
compose for themselves books called apocryphal, and to mingle 
these with the inspired Scripture, respecting which we have 
been fully persuaded, as eye-witnesses and ministers of the word 
from the beginning have delivered to the fathers, it seemed good 
to me also, being exhorted thereto by my genuine brethren, and 
having made myself acquainted with the subject, to set forth from 
the beginning and in due order the canonical books which have 
been delivered to us, and believed to be divine ; so that every 
one, if he is led away by deceit, may learn well to know those 
who have seduced him, while he who remains pure may rejoice 
in having this admonition again repeated. 



442 appendix: athanasius. 

All the books of the Old Testament, then, are twenty-two ; 
as many, according to report, as the alphabetic letters of the 
Hebrews. In order and name they are thus : First the Genesis, 
then Exodus, next Leviticus, after this Numbers, and finally 
Deuteronomy. In the sequel of these are Joshua of Nun, and 
Judges, and after this Ruth ; and then follow the four books 
of Kings, and of these the first and second are numbered as one, 
and the third and fourth likewise as one. After these is the 
book of Psalms, then Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs ; 
then comes Job, and finally the Prophets. Twelve of these are 
reckoned as one book; then comes Isaiah, Jeremiah with Ba- 
ruch and Lamentations and the Epistle, after these Ezekiel, and 
Daniel. Thus far are set forth the books of the Old Testament." 

I have deemed it unnecessary to transcribe the original 
Greek here, as it is so exactly like the preceding lists, except 
in some trifling particulars. One of these is, that Athanasius 
places Job after the Kethubim, and next before the Prophets. 
He also omits, as has before been remarked, the book of Es- 
ther. That it is designed in him will be clear from the pas- 
sage which follows, and which he subjoins to his catalogue of 
the New Test, books that follow those of the Old Testament 
as given above. The concluding part runs thus : 

" These are the fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts 
for these oracles may be filled with them. By these only is the 
doctrine of godliness taught. Let no one add to these, or take 
anything from them. By these our Lord confounded the Sad- 
ducees, saying : Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. To the 
Jews he said, in the way of exhortation : Search the Scriptures, 
for these are they which testify of me. But for the sake of more 
accuracy, I have deemed it necessary also to set forth in this 
writing, that there are other books besides these, which are not 
canonical, designated by the fathers to be read by those who have 
recently joined us, and are desirous to be instructed in the doc- 
trine of piety ; viz. the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Si- 
rach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and (as we call it) the 
Apostolic Doctrine {didu%rj icor utzogtoIcov), and the Shepherd, 
Those then being canonical, and these being read, let there be no 
mention even of any apocryphal book. These are the inventions 
of heretics, who compose them at their pleasure, assigning and 
adding to them dates, so that they may have the semblance of 
ancient books, and that by this means they may find occasion to 
lead the simple into error." 



APPENDIX : SYNOPSIS SCRIPTURAE SACRAE. 443 

This remarkable passage places the books which we name 
apocryphal, in their position as estimated by the fathers in 
general. They might be read in order to enlarge our Chris- 
tian knowledge of religious things ; but they were merely 
subordinate and secondary. The canonical books were sepa- 
rated from them by a wide distinction. 

Athanasius evidently uses apocryphal in the sense of spu- 
rious, worthless, and not merely to designate books not pub- 
licly read, as some of the earlier fathers used it. I get the 
impression from what he has said, in the last paragraph quoted 
from him, that he intends and expects the second class of books 
only, to be read in private, by recent converts desirous of ac- 
quiring more enlarged religious knowledge ; for how other- 
wise could he limit the reading to new converts ? As he has 
expressly named Esther among these, I do not see how we 
can avoid the conclusion, that he positively rejected it from 
the proper Canon of the Old Testament. He makes twenty- 
two books, by separating Judges and Ruth, and omitting 
Esther. This is a peculiar circumstance, both in Gregory 
and Athanasius ; but the reasons of it we can only conjecture, 
for we have no certain clue by which we can come to a proper 
historical knowledge of them. At all events, they can have 
no influence, (in the face of so much other testimony to the ca- 
nonical rank of Esther), in moving us to reject the book as 
they have done. 



No. X. 

Synopsis Scbipturab Sacrae, by an unknown writer of the times of 
Athanasius, attributed by some to him, and published in his Works, 
Vol. II. p. 126 seq. 

The Benedictine editors of Athanasius speak in exalted 
terms of the erudition and judgment of the writer of this Sy- 
nopsis, whom they think not to be Athanasius. He has 
shown an accurate acquaintance with the holy books, and 
particularized each, by an extract from the commencement of 



444 appendix: synopsis. 

each book, wliicli he subjoins to the name of the book. To 
spare room, I omit the Greek original and the extracts, and 
give here the list of books, in his own language. 

Translation. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deu- 
teronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, I. II. Kings 
[I. II. Samuel] reckoned as one book, III. IV. Kings numbered 
as one book, I. II. Chronicles reckoned as one book, I. II. Ezra 
[Ezra and Nehemiah] reckoned as one book, Psalter of David 
having 150 Psalms, Parables of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Song of 
Songs, Job, Twelve Prophets, viz. Hosea, Amos, Micha, Joel, 
Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zecha- 
riah, Malachi, (these are comprised in one hook), Isaiah, Jere- 
miah, Ezekiel, Daniel. The canonical books of the Old Testa- 
ment are twenty-two, equal in number to the Hebrew letters; 
for they have so many elementary signs. 

Besides these are other books of the Old Testament, ivhichare 
not canonical [inspired] ; and these are read only by catechumens ; 
viz. Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, 
Esther, Judith, Tobit. Thus many are the books of the Old 
Testament not canonical. Some of the ancients have affirmed 
Esther to be canonical among the Hebrews; and also that Ruth 
is joined with Judges and reckoned as one book. In this man- 
ner they make out the complement of twenty-two books. 

The books of the Old Testament, canonical and uncanonical, 
are so many, and of such a kind. 

It is easy to see, that this is little else than an exact copy, 
throughout, of the list of Athanasius. But the writer is more 
explicit. While he omits Esther in his list, he gives us an ac- 
count of a different opinion, viz. in favour of inserting it. So 
he also notices the usual manner in which Ruth was united 
with Judges. He also tells us that only the catechumens read 
the uncanonical, i. e. uninspired books, which had been ap- 
pended to the Old Testament. This seems of course to ex- 
clude the public reading of them, at least in the churches 
within his circle of knowledge. 

Having completed his list, the writer proceeds to give a 
synopsis of the contents of each book ; and when he has com- 
pleted his summary of the canonical books, he again mentions 
that the others are not read, except in the limited manner 
already described; p. 168. It seems singular that no men- 



appendix: epiphaxius. 445 

tion is here made of the Maccabees, Baruch, the additions to 
Daniel, Ezra, etc. Nothing can be clearer, however, than 
that Athanasius and the author of the Synopsis reject the idea 
of inspiration, in regard to what we now name apocryphal 
books. But at the close of his work the author of the Sy- 
nopsis says : " The books of the Old Testament which are 
doubted (avtileyopeva = denied), are Wisdom, Sirach, Es- 
ther, Judith, Tobit. "With these also are numbered Macca- 
bees, four books, Ptolemaici (?), Psalms, Canticles, Susanna.. 
These are the books of the Old Testament which are denied. 
(cari).s'/6f.iera)." As this is quite an enlargement of his pre- 
vious list of uncanonical books, so it serves to show, that the 
latter class just mentioned did not attain even to the privilege 
of being allowed to the catechumens. An inauspicious pas- 
sage to the Bomish deutero-canon ! 



No. XI. 

Epiphaxius (flor. A. D. 36S), de Mensuris et Ponderibus, c. sxiii. Yol. 
II. p. 180, edit. Petav. 

Epiphanius has spoken in three different places respecting 
the Canon of the Old Testament ; viz. in the passage named 
above, in Haeres. VIII. and Haeres. LXXVI. In the first 
two passages he gives a catalogue of the books. The most 
complete is the one here selected. 

He prefaces his list with the following remarks : " The 
Hebrews have twenty-two letters ; according to these they 
number their books, although they are in reality twenty-seven. 
But since with them five letters are double, making in fact 
twenty-seven, they contract them into twenty-two ; and so the 
books which are twenty-seven are contracted into twenty-two.'* 
He then goes on to give a list of the books ; which I copy here, 
because the curiosity of the Hebrew student will be gratified 
to learn how Epiphanius pronounced Hebrew, and in what 
way he represented it. 

IIqo3t>i Boiorft, fj y.aleirca Fsveaig y.oufiov ■ ihjGtficod-, rj 
"Ezodog tcov vlcov 'IcQarjl i$ 'Aiyvnzov • oi'dwiey.QU, q %«;- 
38 



446 appendix: epiphanitjs. 

vevstoli AevirvAov •■ iov8a§ijQ, ij egtiv 'AqiS-^ioi ' iXXede^a- 
qs}(i, to /levtEQOVGfiiov. /Ji?]6ov, t] tov 'Itjgov tov A r avr}- 81- 
(ofi, )] tov , Io3§ ' diaaocfx^sifA., tj toot Kqizxqv ' dtagovd', r\ tov 
Pov& • ocpEQTaleifA,, to WaXTiyoiov • defiQiiccfAslft, rj 7zoa>ri] rav 
naQctXemofisvcov ■ 8£@QiiafiEifi, naQateiaopsvav Ssvts'qcc • 8s- 
[A,ovsX T BaaiXeioop TtQcarrj ■ 8a8ov8s{.wvsX, Baailsiav Sevte'qoc • 
djLOtlaxzi, BaGilsimv tqitij ■ 8[iaXa%sl, Baailsiav tstuqti] • 
dpeuXw&, )] TluQoi(iiav ' dexcot'Xe-d; Exy.XqGiaGTt'ig • giqccgi- 
Gsqi, to "Aig\io. T(jjp AiGfiarav ' Sad-aQiuGaQu, to /Jmdexa- 

7tQ0qsi]T0V • 8)]OutoV, TOV TZQOyiJTOV 'Hoa'lOV ' 8lEQE/JA0V, r] TOV 

'IsQEfii'ov • diE&xtrjX, i) tov 'Ee&mrjX ' Si,8ant]X, ?/ tov /Javu'jX • 
dids'adQa, t\ tov j Eg8q(i 7tqc6t>] • Sid-scdQa, r). tov "Eg8qu 8evte- 
qo. • Seg&ijq, r) Ttjg Eg&ijq. 

Translation. First Genesis, which is called Genesis of the 
world ; Exodus, i. e. departure of the sons of Israel from Egypt ; 
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua of Nun, Job, Judges, 
Ruth, the Psalter, I. II. Chronicles, I. II. Kings [I. II. Samuel], 
III. IV. Kings, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Minor Prophets, 
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, I. II. Ezra [Ezra, Nehemiah], 
Esther. 

I have omitted in this version all the Hebrew names, and 
such words as are connected merely with the representation 
of them. Although Epiphanius was born and brought up in 
Palestine, and must have had some knowledge of the He- 
brew language, the Hebrew names inserted in this list are but 
a sorry testimony to the accuracy of that knowledge. How- 
ever, there is no doubt that he has suffered from transcribers ; 
e. g. GiqaGiGSifi, for b^Eri , where -GSiji'm Epiphanius's pre- 
sent text stands clearly for -qei./j., by a mistake of copyists. 
The si, here and elsewhere, represents the long Hhireq in He- 
brew. Peculiar is his prefixing the Aramaean ^ to most of 
the names, .which he writes d, 8a, 8s, and even 8i,8, 8ia, and 
which means of, i. e. book of such or such a name. The 
name of Psalms, GtyEozEXsifi, =ti^ntn ^S& . In some other . 
cases, which I cannot here particularize, the Hebrew names 
are doubtless deformed by the ignorance of copyists ; e. g. 8s- 
fiove'X = ^seraifi , 8a8ov8£fiovEX = David- Samuel ? etc. But — 
to my direct object. 



appendix: epiphanius. 447 

Epiphanius adds to the list translated above, after some 
remarks which we need not here repeat : " There is another 
little book, named Kinoth, which means the Lamentations of 
Jeremiah. The same, which exceeds the due number, is 
joined and united with Jeremiah." He then goes on, in the 
fashion of the day, to find corresponding twenty-twos, in a va- 
riety of things presented in the Scriptures. 

"We perceive that the list of Old Test, books is here com- 
plete ; although the order is diverse from all others which 
have been presented. Job is placed, for example, after Josh- 
ua; but in his other list (Haeres. VIII. Tom. I. p. 19), he 
puts Job after Judges and Ruth. In the list above we have 
Judges, Ruth, Psalter, I. II. Chronicles, Kings, etc. ; in the 
other list Judges, Ruth, Job, Psalter, Proverbs, etc. There 
are also other varieties. Altogether compared and considered, 
this father appears to have been probably an honest, but yet 
a very hasty and blundering critic. 

We must not omit what he says of the deutero-canonical 
books. It runs thus : " There are two other books doubtful 
among them, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solo- 
mon ; besides certain other books which are apocryphal." 
By this I understand Epiphanius to say, that the two books 
mentioned are doubtfid, and the others clearly uninspired. 

It will be seen by our next document, that the reception of 
the Apocryphal books as deutero-canonical, had begun about 
this time to make some progress among the churches. There 
is no doubt that it had been gaining among the more un- 
learned and undiseerning, during most of the fourth century. 
Hence we are prepared for the first manifestation of it, in a 
public and a kind of authoritative way, in the manner an- 
nounced by our next extract. 

No. xn. 

Extract from the Statnta of the Council of Hippo, A. D. 393. Mansi, 
Coneil. Coll. III. p. 924. 

The XXXYI. Statutum runs thus ; Ut praeter Scripturas 
canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum 
Scripturarum. Sunt autern canonicae Scripturae, Genesis, 



448 appendix: jekome. 

Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesu Nave, Ju- 
dicum, Ruth, Regnorum libri quatuor, Paralipomenon libri 
duo, Job, Psalterium Davidicuui, Salomonis libri quinque, 
duodecim libri Prophetarum, Esaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ez- 
echiel, Tobias, Judith, Hester, Hesdras libri duo, Macchabaeo- 
rum libri duo. 

This needs no translation. I have marked those books 
which are additions to all the catalogues hitherto exhibited. 
The jive books of Solomon of course are Proverbs, Ecclesias- 
tes, Canticles, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach. Then 
we have Tobit, Judith, and I. II. Maccabees. Here all the 
books are mingled together and stand under the category of 
canonical. There can be no doubt, that this Council meant 
so to decide. 

No. XIII. 

Council of Carthage, held A. D. 397. Extract from Cap. XL VII. 
of their decrees ; Mansi III. p. 891. 

This Council have repeated totidem verbis the list of the 
Council of Hippo, in No. XII, and doubtless consisted mostly 
of the same bishops. It is therefore unnecessary to repeat 
their words. On these two Councils the Romish church de- 
pend for the establishment of their deutero-canon. And yet 
even these do not reach the whole of it. 



No. XIV. 

Testimony of Jerome, extracted from his Prologus Galeatus ; 
(nor. A. D. 380). 

Viginti et duas litteras esse apud Hebraeos, Syrorum quoque 
lingua et Chaldaeoruni testatur, quae hebraeae magna ex parte 
confinis est. Nam et ipsi viginti duo elementa habent, eodem 
sono et diversis characteribus. — Porro quinque litterae duplices 
apud Hebraeos sunt, Caph, Mem, Nun, Pe, Sade. Unde et quin- 
que a plerisque libri duplices existimantur, Samuel, Melachim, 
Dibre hajammim, Esdras, Jeremias cum Cinoth, id est lamentatio- 
nibus suis. Quomodo igitur viginti duo elementa sunt, per quae 
scribimus hebraice omne quod loquimur, et eorum initiis vox 
humana comprehenditur ; ita viginti duo volumina supputantur, 
quibus quasi litteris et exordiis in Dei doctrina, tenera adhuc et 
lactens viri justi eruditur infantia. 

Primus apud eos liber vocatur Beresith, quem nos Genesin di- 
cimus. Secundus Veelle Semoth. Tertius Vajicra, id est, Leviti- 
cus. Quartus Vajedabber, quem Numeros vocamus. Quintus 



appendix: JEROME. 449 

Elk haddebarim, qui Deuteronomium praenotatur. Hi sunt quin- 
que libri Mosis, quos proprie Thora, id est, Legem, appellant. 

Secundum JProphetarum ordinem faciuut, et incipiunt ab Jesu 
filio Nave, qui apud eos Josue Ben Nun dicitur. Deinde sub- 
texunt Sophetim, id est Judicum librum, et iu eundem compin- 
gunt Ruth, quia in diebus Judicum facta ejus narratur historia. 
Tertius sequitur Samuel, quem nos Regum pritnum et secundum 
dicimus. Quartus Melachim, id est Regum, qui tertio et quarto 
Regum volumine continetur. Meliusque multo est Melachim, 
id est Regum, quam Melachotb, id est Regnorum, dicere : Non 
enim multarum gentium describit regna, sed unius Israelitici 
populi, qui tribubus duodecim continetur. Quintus est Esaias. 
Sextus Jeremias. Septimus Ezechiel. Octavus liber duodecim 
Propbetarum, qui apud illos vocatur Thereasar. 

Tertius ordo Hagiographa possidet. Et primus liber incipit a 
Job. Secundus a David, quem quinque incisionibus et uno Psal- 
morum volumine comprebendunt. Tertius est Solomon, tres li- 
bros habens, Proverbia, quae illi Misle, id est Parabolas, appel- 
lant : Quartus Ecclesiastes, id est Coheleth. Quintus Canticum 
Canticorum, quem titulo Sir hassirim praenotant. Sextus est 
Daniel. Septimus Dibre hajammim, id est Verba dierum, quod 
signLficantius Cbronicon totius divinae historiae possumus ap- 
pellare, qui liber apud nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus 
inscribitur Octavus Esdras : qui et ipse similiter apud Graecos 
et Latinos iu duos libros divisus est. Nonus Esther. 

Atque ita fiunt paritur Veleris Legis libri viginti duo, id est, 
Mosis quinque, et Prophdarum octo, Hagiographorum novem. 

Quanquam nonnulli Ruth et Cinoth inter Hagiogiapba scrip- 
titent, et bos libros in suo putent numero supputandos, ac per 
boc esse priscae Legis libros vigi}iti quatuor 

Hie prologus scripturarum quasi galeatum principium omni- 
bus libris, quos de Hebraeo vertimus in Latinum, convenire po- 
test : ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra bos est, inter apocrypha 
esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia, quae vulgo Salcmonis inscri- 
bitur, et Jesujilii Sirach liber, et Judith, et Tobias, et Pastor, non 
sunt in Canone. Macchabaeorum primum librum bebraicum re- 
peri. Secundus graecus est, quod ex ipsa quoque pbrasi probari 
potest. 

It was mj intention to subjoin a full translation of fbis, for 
the convenience of some readers ; but my limits forbid. In- 
deed a translation of such plain Latin is in a good measure 
unnecessary. I subjoin, however, the substance of what Je- 
rome has here said 



450 appendix: jerome. 

(1) He has given, in words that cannot be misunderstood, 
a list of the -canonical books, just as they are in our present 
English Bibles ; the Protestant canon, and not the Romish. 
He has so designated the books by Hebrew names, represen- 
ted in Latin letters, (printed above in Italic), that there is no 
room for mistake. (2) He has made the Rabbinic division, 
in the main, of the Prophets and the Hagiography ; but still, 
he makes only twenty-two books, and of course includes Ruth 
and Lamentations among the Prophets (as attached to Judges 
and Jeremiah), which the Talmud throws into the Kethubim, 
and thus makes twenty-four books ; see p. 251 seq. above, 
where this whole matter is discussed, and the testimony of 
Jerome adduced. (3) The passage of his, exhibited above, 
concerning the books which we name apochryphal runs thus ; 

This prologue may serve as an introduction to all the books 
of Scripture, which we have translated from Hebrew into 
Latin ; so that we may he able to know, that whatever is beyond 
(or extrinsic to) these is to be put among the apocryphal books. 
Wherefore Wisdom, commonly ascrihed to Solomon, the book 
of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shep- 
herd, .are not in the Canon. The first of Maccabees I have 
found written in Hebrew ; the second in Greek, which indeed 
is manifest from its phraseology.* 

Now since we know that Jerome uses the word canonical 
as equivalent to inspired ; and as he avers the so-called deute- 
ro-canonical books to be not canonical, of course he pro- 
nounces them to be unin spiked. It is to be remembered, 
also, that Jerome says all this, some twenty or more years 
after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage had pronounced 
their decrees in favour of the canonical rank of most of these 
books. Jerome, who lived in the midst of the bishops that 

* It was my intention to add to this Appendix a chapter, in which 
the claims of the Apochrypha (as we call it) would be critically examined, 
and some brief view of the nature and object of the books respectively 
be subjoined. But as I understand, that the publishers of this volume 
design, if they find encouragement, to print an English edition of he Apoc- 
rypha, for the use of such persons as have a desire to investigate these 
ancient records, and in such a way as to embrace something of the liter- 
ary history of the Apocrypha, and particularly of its claims to a place in 
the Canon, I have thought it best to omit the addition named above. 



appendix: HILARY. 451 

constituted these Councils, (on whose decision the Romish 
Church in a great measure rely for the credit of their Deutero- 
Canon), decides fearlessly against them, as does Rufinus also. 
The opinion of one such critic as Jerome, respecting this sub- 
ject which he fully understood, is worth more than that of 
scores of Hipponensian and Carthaginian Councils, respect- 
ing a matter which they did not understand. How can such 
matters be decided, without any of the critical and philologi- 
cal knowledge which is necessary to judge rightly ? 

No. XV. 

Hilary of Poictiers (flol. A. D. 254) Prologus in Lib. Psalm.; § 15. 
Opp. p. 9. 

I shall merely give a translation of this section ; as it seems 
to be little more than a repetition of Origen's list. 

The reason why the Hebrews make twenty-two books, is be- 
cause their alphabet lias so many letters. The books, according 
to the tradition of the ancients, are thus designated : There are 
Jive books of 3Ioses. (li) Joshua the son of Nun. (7) Judges 
and Ruth. (8) I. II. Kings, [I. II. Samuel]. (9) III. IV. Kings. 
(10) I. II. Chronicles. (11) Ezra. (12) Psalms. (13) Pro- 
verbs. (14) Ecclesiastes. (15) Canticles. (16) Twelve Pro- 
phets. Isaiah, Jeremiah with the Lamentation and Epistle, Da- 
niel, Ezckiel, Job, Esther. These complete the number of twen- 
ty-two books. To some it seems good to add Tobit and Judith, 
and thus make out twenty-four books, according to the number 
of the letters in the Greek alphabet 

VTe see how y.ard rroSa Hilary has followed Origen, from 
whom he draws most copiously, in his remarks on the Psalms. 
It is unnecessary, therefore, to say anything more than what 
has already been said, respecting the testimony of Origen. 
One thing however is worthy of note, as to the order of books. 
Job and Esther are here put last of all ; the twelve Prophets 
before the others ; and Daniel before Ezekiel. He has also 
disclosed a new project for enlarging the Scriptures, viz. tak- 
ing in Tobit and Judith — the most apocryphal of all the apoc- 
raphies. This only shows what a floating affair this whole 
matter of the deutero-canonical books was, in those times. 
Nothing is fixed and stable. In short, it is most manifest that 



452 appendix: rufinus. 

the churches had not yet been- brought to a general consent, 
that these books should be admitted. 

No. XVI. 

Rufinus (flor. A. D. 390), the distinguished friend and opponent of Je- 
rome ; Expos, in Symbol. Apost, ad calcem Opp. Cvpriani, ed. Oxon. 
p. 26. 

He thus commences : " Those volumes which belong to the 
Old and New Testament, which are, in accordance with the 
tradition of our ancestors believed to be inspired by the Holy 
Spirit, and have been handed clown to the churches of Christ, 
it seems appropriate to designate in this place." After this 
he proceeds as follows : 

Itaque Veteris Instrument] primo omnium Moysis qninque li- 
bri sunt traditi — post hos Jesu Nave, et Judicum, simul cum Ruth ; 
quatuor post haec Regnorum libri quos Hebraei duos numerant; 
Paralipomenon, qui dierum dicitur liber; et Esdrae libri duo, 
qui apud illos singuli computantur ; et Hester. Prophetarum 
vero Esaias, Hieremias, Ezecbiel, et Daniel ; praeterea XII. Pro- 
phetarum liber unus. Job quoque, et Psalmi David, singuli sunt 
libri ; Salomonis vero tres. 

The order then in Rufinus is thus : Pentateuch ; Joshua ; 
Judges with Ruth; I. II. Samuel in one book, viz. I. Kings; 
I. II. Kings in another, viz. II. Kings ; Chronicles, compris- 
ing two books ; Ezra [Ezra and Nehemiah] ; Esther ; Isa- 
iah ; Jeremiah ; Ezekiel ; Daniel ; Twelve Prophets ; Job ; 
Psalms ; Solomon, three books [viz. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 
Canticles]. Here we have the true order, as seems plain, of 
Josephus' Hebrew Scriptures. After completing the list of 
the New Testament books he goes on to say : " These are the 
boohs which the fathers have included within the Canon, by 
which they woidd establish the assertions of our faith. One 
should know, however, that there are other books, which are 
not canonical, but which our ancestors called ecclesiastical ; 
e. g. the Wisdom of Solomon, of Sirach, called by the Latins 
Ecclesiasticus .... Of the same order is the little book of To- 
bit and Judith, and the books of the Maccabees." Nothing 
can be more decisive or discriminating than this ; and in this 
Rufinus agrees with all the leading fathers. 



5 \ 











Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

- Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

~^f> Sy Treatment Date: May 2005 

^ PreservationTechnologies 

'^ ^^IJyVV^ ' ■'UJ^ -^ o A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

^ y >< ^^ ^ ,0" ' g i \ - .V 111 Thomson Park Drive 

^* > O N ° rtV* -, * o V Cranbeny Township, PA 16066 

<**. . A*" r *".«».• ^, <,. * (724)779-2111 



•a* 



/ 



















<•. 




X <f> 



































500 












^ 






^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 327 291 6 # 



